[HN Gopher] U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites
___________________________________________________________________
U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites
Author : mattcollins
Score : 1143 points
Date : 2025-06-22 00:00 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
| MangoToupe wrote:
| So much for humanity learning from its mistakes....
| hagbard_c wrote:
| 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.
| arp242 wrote:
| "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.
| sorcerer-mar wrote:
| 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.
| Stevvo wrote:
| 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.
| ch33zer wrote:
| Among the political class, which is the only group that
| matters now that senators don't really answer to voters
| any more
| sorcerer-mar wrote:
| 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])
| moogly wrote:
| > Their actions in Gaza have fractured leftwing support,
|
| Chuck Schumer still supports killing and maiming toddlers
| though.
| sorcerer-mar wrote:
| Excellent case in point
| FuckButtons wrote:
| Trump doesn't seem like the kind of person to learn from his,
| or anyone else's mistakes.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| ggm wrote:
| 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.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| 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.
| megous wrote:
| How is this relevant to Trump bombing Iran?
| bigyabai wrote:
| It's the most-salient comment you can write without being
| [flagged] [dead] for "off-topic" conversation.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| 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.
| owebmaster wrote:
| You said it in a way that sounded like no woman is
| oppressed if they can get high level education.
| anonymars wrote:
| 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
| jordanb wrote:
| Consent isn't going to manufacture itself.
| arandomusername wrote:
| > I wonder if the bunker buster was used
|
| Most certainly was. It's underground (Fordow is ~60m?) so it's
| either that or nukes.
| tehjoker wrote:
| the bunker buster, if used, will almost certainly be nuclear.
| estimated tonnage: 300 kt
| arandomusername wrote:
| The GBU-57 was most likely used, which is non nuclear
| p_ing wrote:
| 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
| xnx wrote:
| Genuinely surprised that Israel couldn't push one out of
| their c-130s
| giantg2 wrote:
| Do they even have access to this variant? I thought they
| had access to the older ones that weren't as advanced.
| YZF wrote:
| They do not.
| dingaling wrote:
| 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.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| 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.
| ahazred8ta wrote:
| From 40,000 feet, the bomb would take ~ 50 seconds to
| fall and would impact at mach 1.5.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Israel hasn't degraded Iranian air defenses _that_ much.
| The stuff that can't threaten a F-35 can still trouble a
| C-130.
| energy123 wrote:
| Why do you say this? Israel only lost 1 drone.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| C-130s are very large, slow targets.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| 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.
| invalidname wrote:
| 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.
| tguvot wrote:
| video shows how confused and disoriented are whatever SAM
| that survived
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1lb8mkc/i
| ran...
| CyanLite2 wrote:
| 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.
| p_ing wrote:
| Israel doesn't have access to the MOP.
| algorithmsRcool wrote:
| 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
| xnx wrote:
| > Also, each B2 can carry 2 MOPs
|
| Wow. That is amazing. 60,000 lbs. combined.
| ggm wrote:
| This is nonsense.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| > almost certainly be nuclear
|
| Source:
| tehjoker wrote:
| those of you hating on this comment, the conventional
| weapons could not possibly work, the facility is too deep
| tempestn wrote:
| Even after everyone corrected you with information on the
| specific ordinance used, you're doubling down?
| tehjoker wrote:
| 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-...
| tempestn wrote:
| 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.
| 8note wrote:
| the US has already been forgiven for nuclear weapon use,
| twice. this would suggest that the US would be forgiven a
| third time
| tehjoker wrote:
| 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.
| ggm wrote:
| 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)
| arandomusername wrote:
| 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.
| ggm wrote:
| 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.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| If they can even get back in
| gh02t wrote:
| 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.
| anonymars wrote:
| > 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
| gh02t wrote:
| 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.
| XorNot wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| > Enrichment is nonlinear
|
| Can anyone explain the science behind this statement? To
| be clear: I believe it, and I have seen multiple
| reputable sources say that Iran can enrich to 90% within
| a few months. I was surprised that it is so quick.
| cryptonector wrote:
| 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%.
| gh02t wrote:
| 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.
| perihelions wrote:
| 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).
| neves wrote:
| Remember that Israel had more nuclear bombs than China and
| never signed any international as tmy treaty.
| hollerith wrote:
| 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.
| invalidname wrote:
| 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.
| Narretz wrote:
| Israel doesn't talk about destroying Gaza, it just does
| it.
| invalidname wrote:
| > Israel doesn't talk about destroying Gaza, it just does
| it.
|
| That's clever. Virtue signaling 101. And when things turn
| worse you can pat yourself on the back claiming that your
| virtue was intact and you were on the "right side of
| history". You can pretend that none of the violence is
| related to the side you chose.
|
| The fact is that western ignorance is deeply at fault for
| the violence in Gaza. Probably more so than many others.
| Why?
|
| There are three sides to this conflict:
|
| * Moderate people - these are moderate Israelis and
| Palestinians. These are by far the majority. They might
| not agree on all the details or even on a Palestinian
| state, but they don't want violence and will try to avoid
| it when possible.
|
| * Zero sum players - e.g. Hamas and Israelis who commit
| crimes e.g. deep settlements, war crimes etc. Some of
| them are sadly even in the Israeli government now.
| They've gained strength in Israel thanks to Hamas
| violence and vice versa. They feed each other. For every
| Hamas terrorist plot, the Israeli extremists build their
| base further and commit their own atrocities which result
| in Hamas gaining traction.
|
| * Chaos actors - This is where Iran is. Some chaos actors
| don't care who wins and in some cases they choose a side.
| This is also where you reside. It is not a good place to
| be in.
|
| Now you might have the knee jerk reaction. You think
| you're one of the "good guys", but you're not. You picked
| a side and you throw the blame on Israel while ignoring
| the legitimate facts Israel has in waging war against a
| zero-sum player (Hamas).
|
| By blaming Israel for the destruction in Gaza you
| essentially tell Hamas: no harm no foul. Hamas hears you
| loud and clear. They can sacrifice all the Palestinian
| lives, starve them, use children and civilians as cannon
| fodder. As far as many in the west are concerned, Israel
| is the only one to blame. That removes their incentive to
| surrender and encourages them to escalate the violence.
|
| The way they see it is that this encourages hostility
| which will keep the war going forever. They think that it
| will create a situation in which Israel will lose western
| support and will collapse as a result. The problem with
| this logic is that if Israel loses western support it
| will likely shift to the extreme right-wing and in that
| situation the Palestinians would be in serious trouble.
|
| Want proof?
|
| Go to a pro-Palestine rally carrying both a Palestinian
| flag and an Israeli flag to support co-existence which is
| supposed to be their goal. It isn't. Try wearing a yellow
| ribbon in such a rally to encourage the return of
| innocent civilians from Gaza. Same thing. These are not
| pro-Palestine rallies, they are anti-Israel rallies. Is
| it any surprise that Israel is becoming more extreme?
| 8note wrote:
| i think you missed the point.
|
| they're saying in fewer words "watch what leaders say,
| not what they do"
|
| iran might be saying a lot, but if it wanted war, it
| would have been attacking, the same way that israel is
| attacking gaza, not threatening gaza.
|
| even now when iran has responded to israel's attacks, you
| still seem to care more about iran's threats than iran's
| missiles.
|
| -----
|
| on your very long aside, you are mislabelling the
| positive sum behaviour as zero-sum.
|
| you might see the point in putting at least equal blame
| between israel and hamas for the conflict with the
| positive sum descriptor. israel is in a mutually
| beneficial escalation and continuation of violence with
| hamas. an extreme right wing populace in israel is a win
| both for hamas and for israel. neither care about the
| palestinians, nor the israelis.
| im3w1l wrote:
| They absolutely do talk about it. Maybe you should ask
| yourself why you never heard about it though.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| > 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.
| invalidname wrote:
| 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.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| > 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?
| invalidname wrote:
| > 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.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > 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".
| dralley wrote:
| 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.
| bandrami wrote:
| The _toxicity_ of the Uranium would be a bigger problem
| than the radioactivity
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| 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.
| adastra22 wrote:
| It isn't any more toxic than lead, which this bomb
| probably was filled with.
| rudedogg wrote:
| > earthquake bomb
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_bomb for others
| who haven't heard the term
| cryptonector wrote:
| > 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).
| nopelynopington wrote:
| 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
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| 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.
| ggm wrote:
| 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.
| anonymars wrote:
| 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]
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| 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.
| hooo wrote:
| What's the core technology that enables them? It is crazy
| how deep the GBU-57 can get before detonating
| giantg2 wrote:
| 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.
| ggm wrote:
| 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)
| giantg2 wrote:
| 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.
| kragen wrote:
| 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?
| barrkel wrote:
| How much does refinements of shape, terminal velocity,
| target characteristics change the calculation?
| kragen wrote:
| 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.
| tguvot wrote:
| 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...
| creato wrote:
| > 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?
| kragen wrote:
| You have the key phrase to Google _right there in the
| text you quoted_
| jiggawatts wrote:
| 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.
| kragen wrote:
| 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.
| Qem wrote:
| 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
| 478.0662045889101
| kragen wrote:
| Oh, yeah, I redid the calculations myself and also got
| 400-some kg. I didn't notice the tonne vs. kiloton error!
| algorithmsRcool wrote:
| 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
| klipt wrote:
| > 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...
| the__alchemist wrote:
| - 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.
| _heimdall wrote:
| 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.
| testrun wrote:
| It seems that they have help from the Russians. Putin last
| week mentioned that there are quite a few Russian nuclear
| scientists in Iran.
| econ wrote:
| 200+
| Havoc wrote:
| Yup. Twelve at main site two at Natanz
| benwills wrote:
| I've heard 6 at Fordow, and 30 or so Tomahawks across Natanz
| and Isfahan.
| _heimdall wrote:
| 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.
| Havoc wrote:
| They carry 2x each, so 6 planes 12 bombs. And then single
| plane natanz, 2 bombs
| tiffanyh wrote:
| 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-...
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| 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.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| It's the only bomb types that make sense given how deep
| Fordow is buried
| coliveira wrote:
| 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.
| trhway wrote:
| 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)
| SllX wrote:
| 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.
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| I wonder if we have that mission accomplished banner in
| storage somewhere
| owebmaster wrote:
| > then great, we've done some good for the world
|
| Please don't bring this kind of BS to the discussion
| coliveira wrote:
| > Fordow is 300ft
|
| You seem to believe they really have accurate information
| about these installations. I doubt it.
| creato wrote:
| 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.
| roenxi wrote:
| 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.
| cryptonector wrote:
| German contractors helped the Iranians lots. I would be
| good money that they have been debriefed and/or spied on.
| crazylogger wrote:
| I imagine Iran will just pick a 1000-meter mountain to dig
| under then?
| tguvot wrote:
| no fly or not no fly, but iranian foreign minister had to
| ask permission from idf in order to fly out to geneva
| cryptonector wrote:
| Why a no-fly zone?
| missedthecue wrote:
| GBU-57 reaches 200ft of soil and gravel. Not 200ft of
| 5000psi limestone typical of the Qom formation in that area
| of Iran.
| trhway wrote:
| That limestone probably much better transfers the seismic
| wave of the explosion though.
| missedthecue wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.)
| trhway wrote:
| 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."
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Huh. Thank you. I'm still cautiously sceptical this
| scaled to the 57, but less so than before.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > 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?
| roenxi wrote:
| > - 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.
| pigbearpig wrote:
| Right...the GBU-57 having been placed into service in 2011
| was surely created to destroy 65-year old bunker designs.
| jmyeet wrote:
| 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.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| > _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.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| > _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?
| senderista wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox
| tptacek wrote:
| 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.
| stogot wrote:
| 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.
| tptacek wrote:
| 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.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| You are reading the wordy "silly" incorrectly.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| >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.
| foobarian wrote:
| > keep dropping bombs into the same bomb-hole
|
| I wonder how practical this part is.
| chasd00 wrote:
| If the weather is good and no jamming of gps it's very
| practical. The bunker buster is basically a very large jdam
| and their precision is around 5 meters iirc.
| boston_clone wrote:
| > 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".
| GoatInGrey wrote:
| 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.
| boston_clone wrote:
| 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.
| hwillis wrote:
| > 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
| missedthecue wrote:
| By a wide margin, the majority of Iranian university students
| are women. The ratio is over 60/40
| Narretz wrote:
| I guess because many men are needed for the IRGC and related
| organisations.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| 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.
| vaughands wrote:
| Seriously, what is the benefit to the US here? I can't understand
| how this benefits the country at all.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| It benefits the MIC, this is unlikely to be the end of this
| conflict.
| arandomusername wrote:
| It doesn't. It's all because Israel has extreme influence over
| US politicians.
| tehjoker wrote:
| 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
| thinkcontext wrote:
| 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?
| tehjoker wrote:
| > 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.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| 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.
| 34679 wrote:
| >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.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| 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.
| 34679 wrote:
| >I was talking about the current 40 year old regime
|
| Oh, and how did it come to power?
| amluto wrote:
| 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.)
| 34679 wrote:
| 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.
| amluto wrote:
| 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.
| shihab wrote:
| > 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.
| komali2 wrote:
| 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.
| twixfel wrote:
| Israel is the principal destabilising element in the Middle
| East. It cannot even be argued at this point. It's them, the
| Israelis.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| 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.
| twixfel wrote:
| 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???
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| 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.
| twixfel wrote:
| That's my point though, that's not pragmatic in the
| slightest. It would be ruthlessly pragmatic to favour the
| 400M Arabs 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.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| 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.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| proc0 wrote:
| 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.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| 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.
| komali2 wrote:
| > 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.
| MegaButts wrote:
| 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.
| dralley wrote:
| 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.
| frollogaston wrote:
| 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.
| tombh wrote:
| If I had only one wish, it would be to burst this bubble.
| frollogaston wrote:
| 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.
| guelo wrote:
| 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.
| lunar-whitey wrote:
| 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.
| jaybrendansmith wrote:
| 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.
| nocoiner wrote:
| I hate how much I agree with this assessment.
| proc0 wrote:
| "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).
| cloverich wrote:
| 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.
| hiddencost wrote:
| Nonsense. The history of the US is one of regime change wars
| and genocide.
| macintux wrote:
| Trump has undermined the status quo at every opportunity. He
| feels the US hasn't been compensated for its efforts.
| kumarvvr wrote:
| 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.
| danenania wrote:
| 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.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| 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)
| danenania wrote:
| 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.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| Can't that be said about every path of action in this
| scenario?
| dlubarov wrote:
| 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?
| danenania wrote:
| 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?
| dlubarov wrote:
| 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.
| danenania wrote:
| 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.
| guelo wrote:
| Why would it be up to a rogue non-NPT country, Israel, to
| enforce the NPT?
| jjk166 wrote:
| 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.
| dlubarov wrote:
| 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.
| jjk166 wrote:
| They had a very obvious use for it: trade it to the US in
| exchange for sanctions relief.
| nashashmi wrote:
| Islamic populations?
| kumarvvr wrote:
| 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.
| Ar-Curunir wrote:
| Have you lived in any of these Islamic countries?
| booleandilemma wrote:
| You just have to read a wikipedia article on them. No
| need to live there.
| kumarvvr wrote:
| 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.
| Ar-Curunir wrote:
| Yes, I would say that making sweeping statements about a
| populace does require actual first-hand experience with
| said populace.
| nashashmi wrote:
| > 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
| nashashmi wrote:
| 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.
| selcuka wrote:
| > 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
| buzzerbetrayed wrote:
| Maybe it has something to do with Israel being an ally and
| Iran sponsoring terrorism all over the region
| DangitBobby wrote:
| More and more I find our alliance with Israel in need of
| justification.
| guelo wrote:
| "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.
| partiallypro wrote:
| 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.
| jenny91 wrote:
| Almost a kind of domino theory, if you will?
| vFunct wrote:
| 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.
| twelve40 wrote:
| 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.
| scythe wrote:
| 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...
| Schnitz wrote:
| The world is better off if a theocracy whose leadership
| believes in jihad doesn't have nukes.
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| 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.
| ..
| Schnitz wrote:
| Actions speak louder than words. Iran has been enriching
| Uranium beyond what is needed for civilian use and openly
| admits to doing so.
| Smeevy wrote:
| We should probably keep nukes away from these NAR
| whackadoodles and their puppets as well.
| slv77 wrote:
| 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
| kaycebasques wrote:
| 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?"
| testrun wrote:
| According to Trump Fordow is
| gone.(https://x.com/Osint613/status/1936577812866945296)
| pelagicAustral wrote:
| I fell for the "two more weeks" meme...
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| Ngl.. so did I.
| Kye wrote:
| They didn't finish manufacturing consent yet. Novice mistake.
| cempaka wrote:
| Either they believe it is no longer necessary, or they are
| facing some other set of constraints that is making it less
| feasible.
| MangoToupe wrote:
| I've got to imagine the israel lobby is putting an enormous
| amount of pressure on DC to attack.
| yongjik wrote:
| 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.
| ExaltedPunt wrote:
| 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.
| Timon3 wrote:
| 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.
| ExaltedPunt wrote:
| 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.
| Timon3 wrote:
| 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.
| ExaltedPunt wrote:
| > 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.
| Timon3 wrote:
| > 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.
| ExaltedPunt wrote:
| > 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.
| yongjik wrote:
| 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: Strongly approve 46%
| Somewhat approve 22% Somewhat disapprove 5%
| Strongly disapprove 8% Not sure 18%
| ExaltedPunt wrote:
| 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.
| yongjik wrote:
| 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.
| ExaltedPunt wrote:
| 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.
| testrun wrote:
| According to NYT the US is now at war with Iran:
| https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/21/world/iran-israel-tr...
| aaron695 wrote:
| 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.
| lunar-whitey wrote:
| 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.
| Havoc wrote:
| Saw reports that natanz did get 2x too
| tptacek wrote:
| I think Netanyahu belongs in prison, and Trump, the less said the
| better, but: couldn't have happened to a nicer unauthorized
| weapons-grade uranium enrichment facility dug into the side of a
| mountain hours outside of population centers.
|
| If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading up on the
| GBU-57 "bunker buster" bomb, because it is some Merrie Melodies
| Acme brand munitions. It's deliberately as heavy as they can make
| a bomb, not with explosives but just with mass. They should have
| shaped it like a giant piano.
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| 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...
| tptacek wrote:
| Yes.
| YZF wrote:
| 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.
| sorcerer-mar wrote:
| 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?
| dralley wrote:
| I mean, this strike doesn't really address the core issue
| either. The core issue being Iran being a fundamentalist
| regime.
| grafmax wrote:
| Being attacked by a genocidal regime and the country
| paying for the genocide. Appealing to a moral high ground
| in this conflict is pretty ridiculous.
| 8note wrote:
| 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.
| busterarm wrote:
| And yet every neighboring country in the region supported our
| withdrawal.
| muglug wrote:
| 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.
| fisherjeff wrote:
| Ah but he'll get a better deal, just you wait. Did you know
| he wrote a whole book on deals?
| sodality2 wrote:
| 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...
| uhhhd wrote:
| 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.
| sodality2 wrote:
| 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/2
| 5/06/gov2025-24.pd...
| frontfor wrote:
| 60% enrichment level is _significantly_ higher than
| what's required for peaceful purposes. To say that it's
| not weapons grade is just disingenuous.
| sorcerer-mar wrote:
| 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.
| fallingknife wrote:
| When the only purpose of stepping into that gap is to get
| to weapons grade, it doesn't really work as a gray area.
| twothreeone wrote:
| 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
| sorcerer-mar wrote:
| Ah yes, alongside the weapons grade steel and weapons
| grade copper.
| Retric wrote:
| There's no minimum qualification for steel to be useful
| in a bomb, there is for uranium which this meets.
| mindslight wrote:
| Just to be clear, this isn't "useful [to make] a bomb" -
| it's useful in a _thermo_ nuclear 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
| Retric wrote:
| 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.
| 05 wrote:
| > 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.
| mindslight wrote:
| 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.
| 05 wrote:
| > I thought a second fusion stage required modeling and
| testing well beyond basic development
|
| The bottleneck is UF6 centrifuges, not the modeling.
| They're definitely aiming for a fission-fusion design:
| "The sources note that Iran has attempted to produce
| deuterium-tritium gas on its own inside Iran - with the
| help of Russian scientists - but has so far been unable
| to do so, and due to pressures by the Iranian leadership
| to accelerate the weapons production program, decided to
| try to purchase this substance abroad." [0]
|
| India and Pakistan did their first tests ~30 years ago, a
| lot has changed since then and if you're building a nuke
| in '25 might as well spend some cash on a simulation
| cluster and buy some multiphysics simulation software
| from Russia..
|
| [0] The sources note that Iran has attempted to produce
| deuterium-tritium gas on its own inside Iran - with the
| help of Russian scientists - but has so far been unable
| to do so, and due to pressures by the Iranian leadership
| to accelerate the weapons production program, decided to
| try to purchase this substance abroad.
| hollerith wrote:
| 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%.
| 827a wrote:
| 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?
| dralley wrote:
| 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.
| dj_gitmo wrote:
| > Iran was enriching weapons grade uranium
|
| Do you have a citation for this?
| flyinglizard wrote:
| IAEA was claiming 60% enrichment. Enough weapons grade
| material for nine warheads: https://isis-
| online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Analy...
| dragontamer wrote:
| Weapons grade Uranium is over 90% purity.
|
| 60% is just a stepping stone towards 90%.
| busterarm wrote:
| You only get to 60% on the road to 90%. At 60% it has no
| other useful purpose.
| lamontcg wrote:
| 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.
| Teever wrote:
| 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?
| firesteelrain wrote:
| 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
| Teever wrote:
| 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?
| dralley wrote:
| 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.
| simonh wrote:
| 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.
| bjourne wrote:
| > 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"?
| firesteelrain wrote:
| 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.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| 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.
| drewwwwww wrote:
| bad news about who the US sponsors
| codethief wrote:
| 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.
| tmnvix wrote:
| Are there other uses for highly enriched uranium? Wikipedia
| mentions 'research' I think.
|
| Has the Iranian government ever explained why they are
| enriching uranium?
| wombatpm wrote:
| Their story is a desire to build reactors for when the
| oil runs out. Energy security
| dralley wrote:
| Nobody builds reactors with 60% enriched uranium
| wombatpm wrote:
| That's what their story is.
| Qem wrote:
| 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.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| You only need 5% enriched for that.
| dj_gitmo wrote:
| 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.
| trebligdivad wrote:
| 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?
| friendlyasparag wrote:
| 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.
| ra0x3 wrote:
| 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)
| card_zero wrote:
| 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.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| We made an exception for Israel, India, Pakistan, and
| North Korea.
| coredog64 wrote:
| North Korea left the NPT, Israel never signed it.
| WaxProlix wrote:
| Are you referring to Israel here, who stole the recipe
| from their closest 'ally' and has made not one or two but
| hundreds of nukes outside of the NPT?
| lostlogin wrote:
| Allegedly.
| jampekka wrote:
| AFAIK the recipe was given to them by the French.
| coredog64 wrote:
| The prior government did sign it and there's very good
| reason to hold successor states to the treaties signed
| before they existed.
| lostlogin wrote:
| What about the agreement to protect Ukraine if they gave
| up the nuclear weapons?
|
| Trusting the US or any agreement with it would be
| foolish.
| samrus wrote:
| the NPT is a joke. the only "authorized" nukes are the
| ones you can keep
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| The problem is that these people are religiously
| unhinged. They are executing Gods will with God on their
| side.
| yencabulator wrote:
| Unlike the American evangelicals and the Israeli?
| bigyabai wrote:
| 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?
| ta8903 wrote:
| To be fair it's the same god.
| crystal_revenge wrote:
| 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.
| pmarreck wrote:
| 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")
| lostlogin wrote:
| Are you referring to Iran or Israel?
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| 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.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| That's from Islam. Infact the entire point of ISIS was to
| manifest this prophecy
| TimorousBestie wrote:
| 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...
| samrus wrote:
| this describes both jihadis and the chosen people. the
| whole region is operating on pre enlightenment notions of
| diplomacy
| crystal_revenge wrote:
| 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.
| jordanb wrote:
| I feel like it's been demonstrated that if Israel orders
| the United States to destroy the world on its behalf, the
| United States will do it.
| lostlogin wrote:
| So Iran is a special case compared to every other country
| getting them?
| skissane wrote:
| > 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.
| jhanschoo wrote:
| My understanding is that the prospect of nuclear
| retaliation against hawkish US allies can contribute
| greatly to peace in the region.
| stogot wrote:
| 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
| samrus wrote:
| 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
| dreghgh wrote:
| 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.
| xdennis wrote:
| 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".
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| 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.
| tguvot wrote:
| 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)
| Stevvo wrote:
| Hamas has not "been wiped"; they have more members than
| before October 7th.
| mieses wrote:
| I hope their new members are midwit western university
| students not capable of speaking fluent Arabic while
| extinguishing your consciousness.
| amluto wrote:
| 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.
| tguvot wrote:
| 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.
| petesergeant wrote:
| > Hamas [has] more members than before October 7th
|
| I'm skeptical of this; any source?
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| > 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/midd
| leeast/israel-i...
| Animats wrote:
| 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.
|
| .
| roncesvalles wrote:
| >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.
| bjoli wrote:
| 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.
| LtWorf wrote:
| If there was such a thing of an european politician that
| doesn't just do what USA tells them...
| bjoli wrote:
| How about Denmark?
|
| Donald Trump has made it very clear that the US should be
| looked upon as an adversary.
| LtWorf wrote:
| Denmark in greenland are as much colonizers as USA would
| be.
| xdennis wrote:
| There were no people in Greenland when it was settled by
| the Norse in the 10th century. The current Inuit
| population arrived after the Europeans in the 14th
| century.
| LtWorf wrote:
| The norse didn't "settle", in the sense that they all
| died off before the current inhabitants.
| bjourne wrote:
| 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.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _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.
| jordanb wrote:
| Everyone in Iran who decided to follow international law
| and not pursue nuclear weapons including Khamenei look like
| clowns right now.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Nobody believes that running a secretive bomb-proof
| underground bunker full of gas centrifuges is "not
| pursuing nuclear weapons". We're not stupid.
| jordanb wrote:
| These sites were under IAEA supervision until recently.
| stickfigure wrote:
| They enrich uranium. Supervising the process doesn't
| change the process.
| 8note wrote:
| 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
| devcpp wrote:
| 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.
| jordanb wrote:
| 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.
| tguvot wrote:
| 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...
| nradov wrote:
| 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.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| > 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...
| kelnos wrote:
| "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.
| TeeMassive wrote:
| 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.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| 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/AT
| A-202...
| tripletao wrote:
| 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-...
| skissane wrote:
| 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
| 1659447091 wrote:
| > "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.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| "Intelligence community" can be wrong. It's not as if
| they are infallible.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| 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.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| 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.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| > 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
| firesteelrain wrote:
| 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
| krisoft wrote:
| > 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.
| jack_h wrote:
| 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.
| tripletao wrote:
| > 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.
| strken wrote:
| 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.
| econ wrote:
| 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
| nsingh2 wrote:
| He's been saying this since 1992, so 33 years so far.
| econ wrote:
| What is the term for political leaders who fill their
| speeches with a Boogeyman rather than doing their job? I
| feel there should be a term for it. Ideally one that
| describes them in pairs. Like a boogey marriage.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| "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!"_
| krona wrote:
| > 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?
| birn559 wrote:
| 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?
| 8note wrote:
| 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
| devcpp wrote:
| 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.
| biglyburrito wrote:
| 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.
| _heimdall wrote:
| 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.
| verisimi wrote:
| 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?
| eastbound wrote:
| Iran has "Death to America" as an hymn. It is commonly
| accepted that a nation directly threatening others of death
| deserves the war.
| SillyUsername wrote:
| 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.
| xdennis wrote:
| > 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.
| netsharc wrote:
| 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
| herbst wrote:
| 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.
| samrus wrote:
| 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
| arandomusername wrote:
| 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
| tptacek wrote:
| 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.
| trhway wrote:
| > 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."
| nradov wrote:
| 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/
| tguvot wrote:
| it's declared to be in violation
| https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iaea-board-declares-
| iran...
| cwmoore wrote:
| Curious too. I can't even imagine driving a 16ton nail
| through hundreds of feet of hard rock and reinforced
| concrete.
| missedthecue wrote:
| 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.
| yongjik wrote:
| > 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.
| hearsathought wrote:
| > 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.
| yencabulator wrote:
| Trump sanctioned ICC judges after ICC issued a warrant for
| Netanyahu. It's a lot more than just PR.
| ImJamal wrote:
| 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.
| eastbound wrote:
| Chemicals are usually less efficient than normal bombs.
| They're too local. You can do the same with explosives.
| "Iraq had explosives."
| motorest wrote:
| 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.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| 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.
| motorest wrote:
| 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_dest
| r...
| normie3000 wrote:
| Perhaps because the article you linked says things like:
|
| > U.S.-led inspections later found that Iraq had ceased
| active WMD production and stockpiling.
| motorest wrote:
| > 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.
| dreghgh wrote:
| 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".
| motorest wrote:
| > 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.
| dreghgh wrote:
| "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."
| rsingel wrote:
| 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.
| stickfigure wrote:
| The Kurds would beg to differ.
| jeromegv wrote:
| The same Kurds the US government fucked over in Syria?
| ImJamal wrote:
| Why does it matter if the US screwed them?
| ImJamal wrote:
| > 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.
| lIl-IIIl wrote:
| Wikipedia says they had no WMDs: https://en.m.wikipedia.o
| rg/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_des....
|
| What are these documents you are referring to?
| ImJamal wrote:
| 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.
| rsingel wrote:
| 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
| ImJamal wrote:
| 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.
| samrus wrote:
| 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"
| matt-attack wrote:
| What was the real motivation?
| ImJamal wrote:
| 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.
| NekkoDroid wrote:
| > 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.
| qeternity wrote:
| 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.
| zorobo wrote:
| 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.
| D-Coder wrote:
| "Perjure"? Was he testifying under oath?
| mynameisash wrote:
| "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-...
| usr1106 wrote:
| If lying were a crime, Trump would never be released from
| jail again.
| YPPH wrote:
| The US has no business attempting to enforce domestic law
| on foreign leaders present in the country under
| diplomatic immunity.
| benrutter wrote:
| > 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.
| birn559 wrote:
| 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.
| throw310822 wrote:
| 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.
| vasco wrote:
| 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.
| mongol wrote:
| Is this something the German chancellor can say? In
| countries with an independent judiciary, this is a matter
| for prosecutors, police and courts.
| mr_toad wrote:
| 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.
| jahewson wrote:
| Why should anybody care what some upstarts with zero moral
| authority at the ICC think? Nobody voted for them.
| normie3000 wrote:
| > Nobody voted for them.
|
| How is that relevant? Is an elected judiciary
| demonstrably more objective at interpreting law?
| goatlover wrote:
| Judges aren't representatives, they exist to interpret
| the law.
| browningstreet wrote:
| 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. .
| jama211 wrote:
| I would've thought all the war crimes and genociding would've
| been enough but hey here we are...
| shmoe wrote:
| 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?
| ruined wrote:
| 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...
| tptacek wrote:
| You wouldn't expect significant radiological contamination
| from bombing an HEU facility deep underground? This isn't
| like exposed reactor core material.
| siltcakes wrote:
| This bombing was for show. The US did not use the
| required munitions to destroy these targets. Not even
| close.
| margalabargala wrote:
| They dropped 12 of the GBU-57s. What would you recommend?
| sebmellen wrote:
| 12 of those bunker busters in succession? High chance the
| facilities really were destroyed.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| There are limited ways to destroy Fordow. US is only
| country to possess them
| cryptonector wrote:
| 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.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Why would they have reactors? This is uranium enrichment,
| not plutonium production.
| cryptonector wrote:
| 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.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| That does not follow. It is not like it is an active
| reactor. There is no reason there should be significant
| radiological contamination.
| simonh wrote:
| The facility enriches Uranium hexafluoride gas.
| cryptonector wrote:
| 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.
| tus666 wrote:
| 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.
| shmoe wrote:
| ahh.. in my mind it was multiple hits spread over an area.
| This does make more sense.
| margalabargala wrote:
| Media is reporting that 12 were dropped on Fordow
| jen729w wrote:
| 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?
| sdenton4 wrote:
| The bombs don't dig a hole, removing all matter for the
| next bomb to dig its way deeper...
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| 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.
| missedthecue wrote:
| But they compact the material beneath the explosion.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| That does not materially add to compression strength.
| missedthecue wrote:
| 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.
| reissbaker wrote:
| 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...
| missedthecue wrote:
| 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.
| dontTREATonme wrote:
| They dropped six.
| saberience wrote:
| Six spread across three sites, two on each site. I highly
| doubt the deepest site is out of commission.
| kcplate wrote:
| 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.
| trogdor wrote:
| > 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?
| kcplate wrote:
| 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!
| 400thecat wrote:
| 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.
| adastra22 wrote:
| There is uranium stored there. It was moved out weeks
| ago.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| > It was moved out weeks ago.
|
| Not saying you're wrong, but... source?
|
| And, if so, where was it moved to?
| adastra22 wrote:
| Only Iran knows.
|
| https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-858619
| lonelyasacloud wrote:
| 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.
| crystal_revenge wrote:
| 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.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| 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.
| z2 wrote:
| In the region, it feels like Saudi Arabia and Turkey are
| going to be watching this very closely closely.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| KSA has been slowly coming around for the past decade or
| so. Trump's recent visit -- domestic optics aside --
| confirmed and strengthened that.
|
| Turkey/Turkiye has been going the other direction.
| They're not totally off the reservation, but Erdogan
| isn't exactly in NATO's inner circle personally.
| rexer wrote:
| 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
| Ancapistani wrote:
| 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.
| seadan83 wrote:
| > There will be a precedent of a country acquiring them
| despite Western demands and surviving.
|
| Like North Korea?
| Ancapistani wrote:
| Correct.
|
| And like Ukraine (conversely).
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| I mean 20 years ago, mossad literally destroy their
| nuclear program using Stuxnet
|
| 20 years is reasonable time to rebuild
| cryptonector wrote:
| > 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.
| 15155 wrote:
| 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.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| " 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
| simonh wrote:
| 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.
| samrus wrote:
| 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
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| 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?
| K0balt wrote:
| 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.
| jopsen wrote:
| > 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?
| cryptonector wrote:
| > 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.
| lostlogin wrote:
| 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.
| bentobean wrote:
| > 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?
| lostlogin wrote:
| 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.
| bentobean wrote:
| Is the US perfect? Of course not. But considering the
| alternatives, yes - I am glad the US can serve as the
| arbiter.
| chasd00 wrote:
| 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.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| 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.
| mrtksn wrote:
| 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.
| WaxProlix wrote:
| 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)
| mrtksn wrote:
| 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.
| bigyabai wrote:
| > 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.
| mrtksn wrote:
| You can tell its a shitty one when a resource rich nation
| don't prosper.
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| The number of resource rich nations that do prosper are
| few and far between. It's more the exception than the
| rule.
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| I would be very interested in hearing an Iranian
| perspective on how daily life changed for people when the
| Islamic Republic deposed Pahlavi.
| simonh wrote:
| The regime is spectacularly unpopular with the majority
| of Iranians.
| SllX wrote:
| 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.
| birn559 wrote:
| Look up the demonstrations in Iran within the last ten
| years and/or since 2022.
| yongjik wrote:
| > some proper bombings
|
| and a war that killed 400,000 Americans.
|
| You want to repeat that history?
| theonething wrote:
| 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.
| stickfigure wrote:
| 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.
| herewulf wrote:
| 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..?
| stickfigure wrote:
| 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!
| corimaith wrote:
| 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.
| corimaith wrote:
| 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...
| Hikikomori wrote:
| So we should bomb Israel now as they're fucking around?
| 7952 wrote:
| 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.
| jvm___ wrote:
| 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.
| devcpp wrote:
| Saying "Khomeini" on current day Iran casts a large doubt
| on how much you know on the topic.
| levanten wrote:
| 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.
| senderista wrote:
| See also: Russia
| apparent wrote:
| 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.
| CommanderData wrote:
| 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.
| jordanb wrote:
| I'm sure if we keep trying we'll get it right eventually.
| lazide wrote:
| Bombings will continue until morale improves?
| bravesoul2 wrote:
| The plan is working as intended I think. They are not
| optimising for humanity.
| mahkeiro wrote:
| 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.
| reissbaker wrote:
| 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
| mahkeiro wrote:
| No but talking badly of the royal family will get you
| executed: https://cpj.org/2025/06/saudi-arabia-executes-
| journalist-tur...
| reissbaker wrote:
| You claimed "women's rights in Iran are lightyears ahead
| of Saudi Arabia."
|
| And Iran executes plenty of journalists too.
| koevet wrote:
| Saudi Arabia has killed and dismembered a journalist in
| their own embassy in Istambul, Jamal Khashoggi.
| mahkeiro wrote:
| 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.
| reissbaker wrote:
| #56 vs #113. They're both bad, but one is worse, and
| famously murders women for showing their hair. And that's
| Iran.
| t-3 wrote:
| 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.
| reissbaker wrote:
| 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.
| codethief wrote:
| > 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.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| > _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?
| YZF wrote:
| 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.
| stevenwoo wrote:
| 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
| YZF wrote:
| 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.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| 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.
| llmthrow103 wrote:
| 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.
| djfivyvusn wrote:
| 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.
| jordanb wrote:
| Well in that case I'm sure they're totally cool with us
| bombing them and look forward to being greeted as
| liberators.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that's what the bush crowd was saying
| about Iraq too
| serf wrote:
| 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-...
| soganess wrote:
| 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.
| throw72838474 wrote:
| 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...
| djfivyvusn wrote:
| 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...
| dreghgh wrote:
| 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.
| ryantgtg wrote:
| 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!
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Not even any Bahais? I know plenty of emigres from the
| 70s in the US (LA even) who are still culturally Shia and
| observant
| ryantgtg wrote:
| Maybe! We mostly just discuss things like, "Do you want
| more food? Take more food!"
| Tika2234 wrote:
| 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.
| reissbaker wrote:
| There many Jews in parliament in Israel!
|
| (If you mean Muslims, or Arabs, there are plenty of those
| in the Israeli parliament too.)
| loandbehold wrote:
| Around 20% if Israeli parliament is Arab which is about
| the same as percentage of Israelis who are Arab.
| sir0010010 wrote:
| 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.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| 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.
| Tika2234 wrote:
| 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.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| >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.
| stickfigure wrote:
| 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.
| YZF wrote:
| 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.
| dreghgh wrote:
| 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.
| dreghgh wrote:
| 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.
| YZF wrote:
| 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.
| samrus wrote:
| 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.
| 8note wrote:
| > israel wins a 3000 year old war
|
| against who? the persians beat the babylonian tyrants and
| enabled the rebuilding of the temple way back when. Cyrus
| is a messiah rather than ancient enemy
| prox wrote:
| 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.
| samrus wrote:
| > 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.
| enaaem wrote:
| So you are betting on a quick regime change? Perhaps a 3
| day special military operation? What if that does not
| happen?
| YZF wrote:
| 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.
| nirav72 wrote:
| 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.
| mrtksn wrote:
| 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.
| samrus wrote:
| 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
| nxm wrote:
| US is not interested in invading Iran
| 8note wrote:
| does that matter to whether the US invades Iran? as long
| as the right price is paid in TrumpCoins, the US will do
| whatever
| chasd00 wrote:
| 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?
| herewulf wrote:
| 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.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| 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.
| pstuart wrote:
| Well we had plenty of practice with Iraq and Afghanistan,
| so we know what to do to turn these countries around! /s
| petre wrote:
| Sure. It's nice to hope though. The Iranian establishment is
| even more rabid now.
| Tika2234 wrote:
| 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.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| 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.
| koevet wrote:
| Like in Lybia?
| ReptileMan wrote:
| 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.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| 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.
| reissbaker wrote:
| Actually, Iran's GDP peaked in 2012 and is currently 30%
| lower than that peak. Nice try though.
| riffraff wrote:
| 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.
| YZF wrote:
| 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.
| birn559 wrote:
| 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.
| samrus wrote:
| people didnt think the US would support this bombing. the
| "nothing ever happens" bet isnt looking good right now
| arandomusername wrote:
| Israel can't execute regime change by themselves, so US
| will definitely get involved.
| jeromegv wrote:
| 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
| YZF wrote:
| 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.
| necklesspen wrote:
| 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.
| fakedang wrote:
| 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.
| verzali wrote:
| 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.
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| > 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.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| 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
| 400thecat wrote:
| Argentinian Junta fell after they lost the Falkland war in
| 1982
| herewulf wrote:
| That was an external war initiated through a grave
| miscalculation by the junta. Apples and oranges.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| > through a grave miscalculation by the junta.
|
| Sounds pretty similar to the current situation to me.
| aksss wrote:
| Japan
| adastra22 wrote:
| Okinawa and all those pacific island, not to mention
| China and south east Asia.
| herewulf wrote:
| 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.
| mrtksn wrote:
| 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.
| motorest wrote:
| > 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.
| adastra22 wrote:
| An act of Congress is not required for the first 60 days.
| gehwartzen wrote:
| 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"
| 8note wrote:
| 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
| breppp wrote:
| 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
| nivertech wrote:
| _> 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_s
| trikes...
|
| 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2024_Iranian_str
| ikes_o...
| 8note wrote:
| huh? iran definitely has a sovereign government. just
| because you dont like it doesnt make it not true.
| nivertech wrote:
| _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 'etat (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_...
| yibg wrote:
| So China isn't a sovereign government because it's a
| front for CPP and can be bombed at will...?
| nivertech wrote:
| 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
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Attacked Israel as a response to something?
| scq wrote:
| Yugoslavia.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Can you think of a regime that was bombed by foreigners
| and quickly fell?_
|
| Japan.
| yibg wrote:
| 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.
| birn559 wrote:
| Iranian people won't suddenly start to like the regime just
| because certain sites were destroyed.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| 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.
| nevir wrote:
| 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.
| herbst wrote:
| 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.
| smcl wrote:
| 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
| Panoramix wrote:
| Are they supposed to give up their country just because their
| nuclear enrichment facilities are damaged?
| pms wrote:
| 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.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _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.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Or bomb the oil routes to ensure the rest of the region
| collapses alongside them.
| swat535 wrote:
| 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.
| meekaaku wrote:
| 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?
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| 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.
| hansvm wrote:
| 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.
| StochasticLi wrote:
| 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 = p * (radius)2 = p * (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) x 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) = p x (radius)2 = p x (0.4 m)2 [?] 0.503 m2
|
| Calculate the Total Resistive Force (F):
|
| Force = Pressure x Area
|
| F = 103,400,000 N/m2 x 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 -54degC, 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.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| 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).
| belter wrote:
| Your calculations are wrong, since the strength of the rock
| is more like granite or concrete.
| HAL3000 wrote:
| 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.
| energy123 wrote:
| > 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?
| seadan83 wrote:
| 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.
| energy123 wrote:
| 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.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| 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.
| swat535 wrote:
| Regime change in Iran is not going to happen under
| duress, if anything, this will unite Iranians to defend
| their homes.
| energy123 wrote:
| 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.
| QuadmasterXLII wrote:
| 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
| mieses wrote:
| 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.
| akdev1l wrote:
| > 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)
| gmueckl wrote:
| 3. (Speculation) They know how to enrich further, but
| deliberately didn't.
| margalabargala wrote:
| 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.
| r0m4n0 wrote:
| 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-...
| cdash wrote:
| 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.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| 60% can be weaponized and it's not a huge leap to go to 90%
| weatherlite wrote:
| > I think Netanyahu belongs in prison
|
| We're working on it, 10-20 more years of legal proceedings and
| it's done.
| monkaiju wrote:
| Iran doesnt have and hasnt pursued a nuclear weapons program:
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/17/trump-iran-i...
| FuckButtons wrote:
| 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.
| fisherjeff wrote:
| 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.
| dlubarov wrote:
| 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.
| faramarz wrote:
| 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.
| asadm wrote:
| strangely, all parties involved believe in SAME God.
| Tika2234 wrote:
| 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.
| tw04 wrote:
| 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.
| GuardianCaveman wrote:
| 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.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Maybe the US and Europeans should stop meddling in the
| middle east if they don't want to be their enemies
| etiennebausson wrote:
| Is the EU meddling? I though it was U.S. and Israel that
| were the driving force of those crusades.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Mostly UK, less so in recent years though.
| u8080 wrote:
| Iraqi invesion was aminly driven by US, UK and Poland,
| but some countries was involed too(i.e. Ukraine for some
| reason)
| tw04 wrote:
| >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.
| sir0010010 wrote:
| > 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.
| tw04 wrote:
| 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.
| jama211 wrote:
| Ok the assumptions in this thread are now officially out
| of hand
| floatrock wrote:
| 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.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| 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.
| stickfigure wrote:
| 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.
| rabidonrails wrote:
| 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.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| 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.
| jama211 wrote:
| There are many countries who easily avoid becoming the target
| of Russia, the US, or Israel without maintaining a nuclear
| arsenal...
| rich_sasha wrote:
| > 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.
| tptacek wrote:
| Correct. That is how sovereign states relate to each other,
| though.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| 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 facade 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.
| edanm wrote:
| > 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.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| 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.
| greedo wrote:
| Hezbollah has been completely neutered by Israel.
| ElectricalUnion wrote:
| Funny thing, they used to say that about Hamaz before 7
| October 2023.
| austin-cheney wrote:
| 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.
| runlaszlorun wrote:
| No middle east expert but wouldn't you call Turkey a
| competitor?
| austin-cheney wrote:
| 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.
| herewulf wrote:
| FWIW, Turkey is majority Turkic and Sunni. The Middle
| East is a complex place.
| t-3 wrote:
| Turkey and Iran also have some common interests WRT to
| Kurds and other minority groups, though they clash in
| other areas (like Syria).
| edanm wrote:
| 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?
| austin-cheney wrote:
| I have 5 complete US military CENTCOM deployments (about
| 5 years living there). What is your expertise?
| edanm wrote:
| 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!)
| austin-cheney wrote:
| 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.
| edanm wrote:
| > 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.
| rsync wrote:
| "You're literally flying in the face of..."
|
| No.
|
| Your parent is _figuratively_ flying in the face of ...
|
| I have five figures of karma with which to fight this
| battle...
| edanm wrote:
| No, no fight from me - you're totally right! I'm on your
| side and I usually don't make that mistake :)
| dreghgh wrote:
| 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.
| edanm wrote:
| 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.
| samjones33 wrote:
| 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...)
| austin-cheney wrote:
| 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.
| belorn wrote:
| 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.
| frereubu wrote:
| > 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 facade 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 facade does
| crack pretty easily.
| andrepd wrote:
| There was at least a facade. That's the thing: today you
| don't even need to _pretend_ to care.
| somenameforme wrote:
| 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
| 0xDEAFBEAD wrote:
| >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.
| reissbaker wrote:
| 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.
| octo888 wrote:
| 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?
| rich_sasha wrote:
| 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.
| SllX wrote:
| 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.
| mdhb wrote:
| 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.
| reissbaker wrote:
| 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.
| pms wrote:
| 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.
| SllX wrote:
| > 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.
| pms wrote:
| 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.
| SllX wrote:
| What you are proposing is not a change, it's still might
| makes right. You're just changing the letterhead.
| Kamq wrote:
| > 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.
| tchalla wrote:
| > 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.
| justin66 wrote:
| > 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.
| SllX wrote:
| 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.
| justin66 wrote:
| 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.
| SllX wrote:
| 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.
| justin66 wrote:
| 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.
| devcpp wrote:
| 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.
| snapetom wrote:
| You 100% know why.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| 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."
| seydor wrote:
| 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"
| viraptor wrote:
| 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.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| 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.
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| _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.
| gghhzzgghhzz wrote:
| 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.
| thimabi wrote:
| 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.
| herewulf wrote:
| 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".
| thimabi wrote:
| 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.
| foooorsyth wrote:
| Rockets?
|
| Seoul is in _artillery_ range of the border.
| stickfigure wrote:
| 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.
| secondcoming wrote:
| Attacking North Korea would result in millions of
| refugees pouring into South Korea and China. Nobody wants
| that
| somenameforme wrote:
| 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_sta
| tes_by_re...
| sejje wrote:
| If what stuff is successful?
| stickfigure wrote:
| It's a gruesome thought, but I don't imagine very many
| refugees crossing the (heavily mined) DMZ into South
| Korea...
| normie3000 wrote:
| > 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.
| seydor wrote:
| 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
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| 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.
| RugnirViking wrote:
| 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
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| 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?
| rapind wrote:
| > if our divorced angry next door neighbor
|
| Why is "divorced" relevant. Maybe he should be the one
| worried about NIMBYs.
| RugnirViking wrote:
| 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
| itishappy wrote:
| Fun fact: The divorce rate spikes to about 60% for second
| marriages, but only about 40% of first marriages end in
| divorce.
| rapind wrote:
| > 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".
| somenameforme wrote:
| 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/expl
| orer/crim...
|
| [2] -
| https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/12/john-
| faso/...
| lovich wrote:
| >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
| prmoustache wrote:
| 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.
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| 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.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| 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.
| matt-attack wrote:
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| Police protect through deterrence
| IOT_Apprentice wrote:
| Through violence & zero accountability.
| maest wrote:
| Not all countries are like the US
| etiennebausson wrote:
| 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.
| somenameforme wrote:
| 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.
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| 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.
| IOT_Apprentice wrote:
| 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.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > 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.
| tim-kt wrote:
| 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.
| margorczynski wrote:
| > 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.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > 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.
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| 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.
| erikerikson wrote:
| 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.
| andrepd wrote:
| Wow, super interesting! Where was this if I might ask?
| IOT_Apprentice wrote:
| Out of curiosity, where do you live that your perception
| of life is one of SHTF constantly & unending murder in
| your city?
| fionic wrote:
| Hah ez. Syracuse or Rochester NY my boy. Sounds like it
| must be nice to live in a bubble and retort at your
| keyboard.
| LeonB wrote:
| 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.
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| > 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.
| achandlerwhite wrote:
| Sounds more like urban vs rural with respect to crime
| rates than guns or not.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| 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?
| t-3 wrote:
| 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).
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| 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."
| t-3 wrote:
| 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.
| icameron wrote:
| Sportsmen use long guns like 30'6 for big game hunting
| (elk, deer, antelope) out west. Shots over 100 yards
| require a large cartridge like that. AR-15 are used in
| the southern states for wild hogs and varmints, or
| coyotes. Not exactly trophy hunters. I'm just saying the
| popularity of the AR-15 is not driven by hunters.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Refers to data, doesn't reference data.
| somenameforme wrote:
| 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/n
| cvrw2018/...
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| 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.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Why are we assuming that rural areas have more gun per
| capita than urban areas? Nothing in that report goes into
| that topic.
| icameron wrote:
| 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/AJP
| H.2017.3040...
| tim-kt wrote:
| > 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.
| eproxus wrote:
| 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).
| thunky wrote:
| If someone knows you are heavily armed will they be more
| or less likely to attack you?
| MSFT_Edging wrote:
| 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.
| erkt wrote:
| 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.
| dreghgh wrote:
| Can you clarify which part of the constitution is being
| ignored here?
| righthand wrote:
| 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.
| nickff wrote:
| > _" 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.
| righthand wrote:
| 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.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| > _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.
| crooked-v wrote:
| Most immigration offenses are specifically not crimes, so
| that the government doesn't have to give the people
| involved legal proceedings.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| The immigrants in thr court houses are breaking the law?
| Sounds like a judge should determine that.
| 8note wrote:
| 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
| LeapingPanda wrote:
| > 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.
| crystal_revenge wrote:
| 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.
| nradov wrote:
| 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.
| twelve40 wrote:
| 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.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| 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.
| herbst wrote:
| Good old "weapons make everything safer" logic. Guess I
| should get some nukes as well?
| otherme123 wrote:
| 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".
| motorest wrote:
| > 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?
| seydor wrote:
| 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
| motorest wrote:
| > 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.
| seydor wrote:
| > 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.
| motorest wrote:
| > 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?
| kmijyiyxfbklao wrote:
| 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.
| hajile wrote:
| If neither India nor Pakistan had nukes, they would be at
| war today. Their nukes saved a lot of lives.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| 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.
| hajile wrote:
| 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.
| somenameforme wrote:
| 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.
| the_af wrote:
| 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.)
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| 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.
| hnaccount_rng wrote:
| 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
| samrus wrote:
| 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
| motorest wrote:
| > with the lack of a war happening between them?
|
| What was this, then?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan
| _co...
| samrus wrote:
| thats what a "war" looked like when both parties have
| nukes
|
| ukraine is what a war looks like when both parties dont
| have nukes
| azan_ wrote:
| In case of Ukraine one party has nukes, the biggest nuke
| arsenal in the world actually
| the_af wrote:
| 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).
| donkeybeer wrote:
| 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.
| mcphage wrote:
| The thing that lasted 4 days and had less than 100 people
| killed?
| ordinary wrote:
| Nukes make individual countries safer, but every
| additional country with nukes makes the world as a whole
| _less_ safe.
| somenameforme wrote:
| 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.
| stickfigure wrote:
| 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.
| mft_ wrote:
| 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.)
| quickthrowman wrote:
| The DMZ is 35 miles north of Seoul and there are enough
| NK artillery pieces aimed at Seoul to level it.
| dontTREATonme wrote:
| 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.
| t-3 wrote:
| > 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.
| dontTREATonme wrote:
| Houthis and Hezbollah are both arms of Iranian regime,
| acting directly under IRGC direction.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Libya giving up its nukes is the precise reason Iran
| doubled down on its program.
| ignoramous wrote:
| Probably because the country you live in has one or is
| under unconditional protection of one.
| pms wrote:
| 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.
| andsoitis wrote:
| what do you think could be a first step that moves us in
| that direction?
| pms wrote:
| 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.
| motorest wrote:
| > 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.
| amelius wrote:
| I suppose what "approved" means is in the eye of the
| beholder.
| jonyt wrote:
| Iran is a signatory of the NPT so - not approved.
| floatrock wrote:
| > 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.
| cm2187 wrote:
| 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.
| mvc wrote:
| 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?
| Aloisius wrote:
| Pretty sure it is the fundamentalist theocracy.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >problem is with religious extremists sponsoring terrorism
| getting nukes.
|
| Yes, tell me more about the US please
| drcongo wrote:
| Ha, I read that sentence and thought "huh, but the US
| already has nukes". And Israel for that matter.
| tpm wrote:
| > 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.
| skavi wrote:
| I don't see any B2s flying over Israel.
| aiisjustanif wrote:
| 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
| mikeen wrote:
| 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.
| BaudouinVH wrote:
| here is more about that bomb :
| https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-b#394257unker-buster-a...
| noisy_boy wrote:
| Page not found
| b2fel wrote:
| https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-bunker-buster-an-
| exper...
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Looks like your URL got munged. Try:
| https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-bunker-buster-an-
| exper...
| alkonaut wrote:
| 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).
| Meekro wrote:
| If Netanyahu stepped down tomorrow, apparently the most
| likely successor would be Israel Katz. He would maintain
| basically the same foreign policy.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| 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.
| thimabi wrote:
| 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.
| nivertech wrote:
| 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" ("Ty vinovat uzh
| tem, chto khochetsia mne kushat'")
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wolf_and_the_Lamb
| smcl wrote:
| In ten years time you're going to claim that war with Iran was
| stupid, avoidable and something you were against all along.
| Findecanor wrote:
| > 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.
| amelius wrote:
| ICC also has an arrest warrant against Netanyahu.
| Findecanor wrote:
| For events in Gaza last year, yes. The corruption charges
| are older and domestic only.
| ncallaway wrote:
| Yes, but it does significantly limit any "flee the
| country" options for escaping domestic charges.
| t-3 wrote:
| Not all that much. Practically speaking, NATO countries
| will not arrest him.
| amelius wrote:
| ICC is being hosted by a NATO country ...
| t-3 wrote:
| 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.
| amelius wrote:
| 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.
| beepbopboopp wrote:
| Well mostly because the charges are insane and political.
| Anyone who tells you there is a clear bad guy and good
| guy in the Israel v. Palestine conflict is trying to sell
| you the Brooklyn Bridge.
|
| Its a complex, long standing war and not the
| responsibility of any single person.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| The main charge is for the war crime of "starvation as a
| method of warfare".
|
| There is nothing political about that, and any measure of
| righteousness in what lead to it is irrelevant.
| beepbopboopp wrote:
| You're referring to the cutting off of supply lines into
| places where the enemy has chosen to embed themselves.
| With almost infinite video proof of misappropriation of
| all humanitarian aid (food and supplies) of their
| citizens during the conflict.
|
| This is literally how every war since time has gone. The
| "Starvation" nomenclature is propganda, which to their
| credit they are CRUSHING at.
| amelius wrote:
| > With almost infinite video proof
|
| One-sided proof. The Isreali already made themselves
| impossible by banning the press.
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| Yep. Israel is still a party to the starvation and
| restriction of humanitarian aid. Hamas notwithstanding.
| Both sides can be evil. Two wrongs don't make a right etc
| etc.
| amelius wrote:
| > misappropriation of all humanitarian aid
|
| International organizations already warned that this
| might happen if the Israelis and USA would try to supply
| the aid directly by themselves, because this requires a
| level of expertise that they simply don't have. However,
| Netanyahu wanted to take matters in his own hands and the
| result was another crime against humanity.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Wasn't there some sort of the parliamentary issue with his
| government that this new war will push off as well?
| edanm wrote:
| > 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.
| geysersam wrote:
| > So he can't just indefinitely put off the trial against
| him.
|
| Unless he changes the law, which he's tried on multiple
| occasions
| reactordev wrote:
| War crimes are only crimes when the war ends... start another
| war.
| arendtio wrote:
| 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
| reactordev wrote:
| Oh I'm definitely not defending the man. He's scum. And
| you're totally right - so many atrocities are swept under
| the rug.
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| >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)
| jama211 wrote:
| 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.
| mylons wrote:
| 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.
| drcongo wrote:
| 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.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| 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.
| rafterydj wrote:
| "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.
| mylons wrote:
| to say that is what is happening is completely
| disingenuous. seemingly something happened by the
| democratically elected government of Gaza on 10/7
| ath3nd wrote:
| What happened on 10/7 was terrible but a terror attack
| doesn't make what Israel does to Palestine less of a
| genocide.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| There is a reason officials of both Hamas and Israel have
| been charged by the ICC.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > 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.
| yibg wrote:
| 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?
| mcv wrote:
| 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.
| tomrod wrote:
| 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
| Raphael 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,
| Raphael 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
| ath3nd wrote:
| > is it a genoicde?
|
| Yes, it is.
|
| It fits all the criteria of genocide AND ethnic
| cleansing.
|
| - Starving civilians?
| https://press.un.org/en/2025/sc16060.doc.htm
|
| - Killing children
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0eq9lq7xr1o
|
| - Not allowing aid to reach people
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/20/israel-
| still-b...
|
| - Bombing hospitals
| https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c4g28z483eko
|
| - Putting people in concentration camps
| https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-
| territory/...
|
| It fits ALL the criteria of a genocide.
|
| > trump is actually doing a lot of fascist leaning
|
| He is, because he is a fascist authoritarian dictator
| spwa4 wrote:
| Those are not the criteria of genocide ... Here are the
| criteria:
|
| https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
|
| Here's the basics:
|
| "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."
|
| Read. Note that numbers don't matter, intent does.
| Kidnapping a single kid can almost be genocide and an
| attack with 1000 civilian victims can fail to qualify as
| a genocide. Now go and google "Hamas charter" and read.
| Intent is pretty damn clear.
|
| Israel is not intending to destroy an ethnic group.
| They're simply not. Hamas, in contrast, is. The
| organization's entire existence is centered around their
| intent to commit genocide.
|
| This is also the reason Russia's actions in Ukraine,
| meant to destroy the Ukrainian nation and identity, ARE
| warcrimes but Ukraine's (much more limited) actions
| inside Russia don't qualify. Despite the fact that
| Ukraine _is_ killing people in Russia. Of course
| propaganda bots are trying to confuse both issues.
|
| So in other words, by the UN definition, by the ACTUAL
| criteria:
|
| 1) Israel's war in Gaza is NOT a genocide.
|
| 2) Hamas' attack on 10/7, intended to wipe Israel off the
| map by killing Jews, was genocide.
|
| 3) a whole number of Hamas' actions outside of the 10/7
| attack ALSO qualify as genocide, as the intent is clear
| (such as their actions when they got elected, to give an
| example of something that DOES qualify as genocide
| against Palestinians ... but of course committed by
| Hamas)
|
| The simple fact is that Hamas, _and_ frankly a lot of
| Palestinians, just like Russia, _want_ to commit
| genocide. That is what makes the difference according to
| the criteria.
| drcongo wrote:
| I don't think I've ever seen such spectacular mental
| gymnastics. Absolutely incredible.
| cluckindan wrote:
| Did you read your own list?
|
| Based on news reporting, what Israel is doing in Gaza
| checks multiple items.
| clueless wrote:
| Sure, openly written documents can help with evaluation
| of intent, but how can we ever define someone's intent
| (something that is only in people's hearts)? We know of
| many legal cases where the intent is obvious but not
| easily provable.
| spwa4 wrote:
| Well, if they widely publicize a document that their
| intent is to erase X off the map, like Hamas did [1],
| like Russia did [2], then we know.
|
| Israel ALSO publicizes their intent in Gaza, and ... it's
| not eliminating en entire population, it's "Israel's
| campaign has four stated goals: to destroy Hamas, to free
| the hostages, to ensure Gaza no longer poses a threat to
| Israel, and to return displaced residents of Northern
| Israel." [3]
|
| So, again, the conclusion is that Hamas commits genocide,
| including against Palestinians (and Israeli, and Jews,
| and Lebanese, and Jordanians, and ... as evidenced in
| other documents, and Israel does not.
|
| It's even worse than that, because READ the documents ...
| Hamas explicitly states that committing genocide in
| Palestine and Israel against Jews and "Palestinian
| traitors" ... is the start. They clearly state their
| intent to do so worldwide, on essentially everyone, as
| that will bring the islamic second coming. Yes, really,
| that's what it says.
|
| But of course the only explanation can be that
| Palestinians have been lying about their intent when
| they're killing people and Israel has been lying about
| their intent too. That's the only possible explanation.
|
| [1] https://avalon.law.yale.edu/21st_century/hamas.asp
|
| [2] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_invasion_of_the
| _Gaza_S...
| mcv wrote:
| What Israel is doing checks the first and third items in
| your list. They kill members of the group, and not just
| in Gaza; in the Westbank, it's common for illegal
| settlers to attack Palestinian towns, including killing
| people. The IDF does nothing to stop them, but if
| Palestinians try to defend themselves against this
| aggression, IDF shows up to stop that.
|
| The wall separates farmers from their land, and has made
| it nearly impossible for Palestinians to live their life,
| to go to work, etc. And Gaza is a ghetto; an open-air
| prison, with way too many people, and no way for them to
| build a normal life. Israel has also kicked Palestinians
| out of their homes in order to give them to Jews.
|
| I'm not denying that Hamas is also genocidal; they
| clearly and openly are. And probably more so in intent,
| but a lot less so in capability. Israel has been killing
| and disrupting a lot more Palestinian lives than the
| other way around.
| spwa4 wrote:
| Can you read? Intent is required. Otherwise, the list
| does not matter. The police kidnaps people in pursuit of
| traffic violations too. Intent matters. Hamas declares
| their intent to be genocidal, Israel also declares their
| intent, and it's not genocide.
|
| Second these are the basics, not the entire treaty. ANY
| object used by any adversary for military purposes,
| attacks or coordinating attacks, including hospitals and
| schools, is a valid target.
|
| And that is ALSO not the entire story. For example, most
| targets can be attacked as soon as any commander thinks
| they're used by the enemy for attacks, without any
| warning. This applies to houses for example. But not
| hospitals. For hospitals, a warning must be given first,
| then, I believe minimum 2 hours after the warning, an
| attack against a hospital is legal.
|
| There is NOTHING that has absolute immunity. To give
| another example: if a faction fires from within a protest
| of otherwise innocent people, returning fire is not a
| warcrime. Not even when innocents get hit.
| rabidonrails wrote:
| 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.
| mdhb wrote:
| Then you know... there's the whole crimes against humanity
| thing from the ICC too...
| nahnahno wrote:
| Based on their heavily biased view of the Gaza conflict,
| based on their Arabic affiliations and the Hamas-run Gaza
| government's reporting.
| breakyerself wrote:
| 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.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| 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.
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| > _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 (syqvr vhd).
| However, since this website was exteremely hostile to
| Netanyahu, the charge was changed to being _unusually
| responsive* to requests from Netanyahu's spokespeople
| (h`nvt khrygh).
| enjeyw wrote:
| 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
| badpun wrote:
| > unauthorized weapons-grade uranium enrichment facility
|
| Who authorized Manhattan Project?
| lazyant wrote:
| "a genocidal smart evil man convinced a stupid evil man to
| attack a country with an evil regime" (paraphrasing)
| recroad wrote:
| Nice justification of illegal bombing. On point with Western
| values and racist attitudes.
| belter wrote:
| 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...
| 8note wrote:
| "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
| sanderjd wrote:
| 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.
| vlod wrote:
| >They should have shaped it like a giant piano.
|
| I immediately thought about Wile E. Coyote and the Road
| Runner.... wasted youth
| boston_clone wrote:
| 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.
| tptacek wrote:
| 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
| boston_clone wrote:
| 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.
| didntknowyou wrote:
| 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.
| MrSkelter wrote:
| 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.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _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.nyti
| mes.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.
| andrewinardeer wrote:
| I wonder if Iran will now activate the sleeper cells they have in
| the US?
| SkyeCA wrote:
| As is tradition: Israel says jump, the US responds "How high?"
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| Suppose we should congratulate Bibi on his ascendancy to the US
| presidency.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| If it were legal, Russia probably would surpass Israel in
| political influence...legally.
| foogazi wrote:
| Russia's main drone supplier is about to be knocked offline
| e40 wrote:
| According to a Ukrainian friend Russia is now producing
| them themselves. They got the design plans from Iran.
| sealeck wrote:
| They've got a bunch of other facilities dotted around the
| place:
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/16/ukraine-
| war-br...
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| 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-...
| chairmansteve wrote:
| Elon is out, Bibi is in.
| know-how wrote:
| 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.
| sealeck wrote:
| > 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/isra
| el-q... [2]: https://www.ft.com/content/8d75baf6-6756-4d52-a4
| 12-bc90bbbde...
| busterarm wrote:
| 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.
| sealeck wrote:
| 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.
| roboror wrote:
| Ah so merely our most important and powerful allies
| disagreed with the move?
| latency-guy2 wrote:
| 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.
| sealeck wrote:
| > 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.
| latency-guy2 wrote:
| 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.
| hiddencost wrote:
| Not true.
| busterarm wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_fr
| om_...
| Ar-Curunir wrote:
| 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
| flyinglizard wrote:
| 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.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| I would trust the Ayatollah with nukes much further than I
| would trust Stephen Miller.
| sealeck wrote:
| A truly sad indictment of the state of US government...
| kelnos wrote:
| My trust with either of them having nukes is so low it's
| not worth comparing.
| mhb wrote:
| Trust him to what? Do what he says he would do with them?
| samaltmanfried wrote:
| > 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.
| diogocp wrote:
| 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...
| samaltmanfried wrote:
| I don't care about his opinion on America. Tell us about
| his policy on nuclear weapons.
| mhb wrote:
| There are only two or three dots. They're not hard to
| connect.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| He talks a big game but he doesn't want everyone in his
| country to die. How do those dots line up for you?
| mhb wrote:
| 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?
| bigyabai wrote:
| 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.
| mhb wrote:
| 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.
| hearsathought wrote:
| > 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.
| benreesman wrote:
| 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.
| paxys wrote:
| 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.
| benreesman wrote:
| 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
| bgwalter wrote:
| 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"
| dj_gitmo wrote:
| It's horrible that the president can start a war without even
| asking congress.
| sssilver wrote:
| My impression was that this wasn't how the US worked?
| epgui wrote:
| You're right; it's how the US malfunctions.
| handfuloflight wrote:
| Congress does not have a spine.
| gxs wrote:
| 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
| disqard wrote:
| ...and don't forget Godel's Loophole (from Wikipedia):
|
| > Godel's Loophole is a supposed "inner contradiction" in
| the Constitution of the United States which Austrian-
| American logician, mathematician, and analytic philosopher
| Kurt Godel postulated in 1947. The loophole would permit
| America's republican structure to be legally turned into a
| dictatorship.
| colechristensen wrote:
| 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.
| PopePompus wrote:
| 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.
| _kst_ wrote:
| The last US declaration of war was in 1942, against
| Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania (allies of Nazi Germany).
| mulmen wrote:
| WWII _ended_ in 1945. The last time the US officially
| declared war was June 4, 1942. https://en.wikipedia.org/wik
| i/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unit...
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| 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.
| Freedom2 wrote:
| 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.
| awongh wrote:
| This hasn't been a rule since WWII?
| sealeck wrote:
| 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
| kelnos wrote:
| > _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.
| stevenwoo wrote:
| He notified the opposition leadership prior to the
| announcement on his social media website so he actually
| complied with that part.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| That requirement has been honored rarely or skimpingly at best.
| dmschulman wrote:
| name one instance where congress wasn't involved in decisions
| around war powers.
| ekianjo wrote:
| when were they involved in the past 30 years?
| dmschulman wrote:
| not once, but twice with iraq in 1990 and 2003 (just to
| name one). but you still haven't fielded my question.
| archsurface wrote:
| He didn't. The war was already started, he lent brief
| assistance.
| bagels wrote:
| Horrible, and illegal, but Congress has repeatedly refused to
| do their constitutional duty.
| cvoss wrote:
| 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.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| These strikes are not illegal in the American body of
| legislation and law. We've been doing things like this for
| many decades.
| nicomeemes wrote:
| "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
| ekianjo wrote:
| It's been like that for more than 20 years.
| FuckButtons wrote:
| 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.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| OK what was done was done. What should we expect the political
| fallout in Iran?
| tptacek wrote:
| 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.
| awongh wrote:
| 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.
| ummonk wrote:
| 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.
| awongh wrote:
| 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?
| sealeck wrote:
| > 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.
| awongh wrote:
| 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.
| jjk166 wrote:
| 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.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| "...and we turned out just fine!"
| awongh wrote:
| 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).
| ummonk wrote:
| 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.
| awongh wrote:
| It would be reaaalllly stupid for the USA to invade Iran.
|
| Hopefully Iran is the one that blinks for the reasons
| above.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Why would they blink when they know they are safe from a
| boots on the ground invasion for the forseeable future?
| jt_b wrote:
| 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.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| How does that follow?
| sebmellen wrote:
| We don't need to occupy Iran to absolutely decimate their
| economic output.
| riffraff wrote:
| What else are you going to do? Iran has been sanctioned
| by the US for decades.
|
| Can you really sell "we'll be bombing civilians for
| years"?
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| 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.
| gregoryl wrote:
| > 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.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| Jordan seems pretty safe and happy to me.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| 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...
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| 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?
| firesteelrain wrote:
| Mexico is more of a threat. So many drugs flow North.
| It's slowly killing generations of people for decades.
| sebmellen wrote:
| Egypt, Jordan, Cyprus? Really?
| YZF wrote:
| 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.
| tdeck wrote:
| 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...
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| > Attacking Israel hasn't been a high priority for Iran.
|
| Really?
|
| It is interesting that you made no mention of Hezbollah
| in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, not Houthi in Yemen. All are
| well-known proxies for Iran to militarily harass Israel.
| They all receive direct funds and weapons from Iran.
| sebmellen wrote:
| 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
| tdeck wrote:
| Those are words. None of this refutes the clear pattern
| of escalations I described coming from Israel.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| It's called defense
| zorobo wrote:
| And mein kampf was a book
| netsharc wrote:
| 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
| golol wrote:
| 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.
| 8note wrote:
| 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
| yencabulator wrote:
| Not _that_ secular.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonyad
| awongh wrote:
| 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.
| ronnier wrote:
| 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
| moosedev wrote:
| I assume it's Supreme Leader.
| citizenkeen wrote:
| Supreme Leader
| dralley wrote:
| 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.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| 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.
| throwup238 wrote:
| 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.
| dralley wrote:
| 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.
| ivape wrote:
| Cambodia says hi. No one did it better than Kissinger.
| dralley wrote:
| What part of "strategic precision bombing is not the same
| as carpet bombing" did you not grasp.
|
| Yes, I agree that bombing random forest is not that
| useful.
| ivape wrote:
| What precision bombs were used to level Gaza? See, I
| don't believe the word "precision" here, one too many
| murderous actors involved.
| gherkinnn wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| 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?
| davejagoda wrote:
| The order of events is correct, but leaves out the Soviet
| invasion of Manchuria which started just before the
| bombing of Nagasaki.
| paganel wrote:
| 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.
| energy123 wrote:
| 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.
| Aloisius wrote:
| As if conventional responses are the only way to retaliate.
| We are talking about Iran here. They're all about
| asymmetric warfare.
| energy123 wrote:
| Their intelligence heads are also all gone. What kind of
| response do you envisage?
| Aloisius wrote:
| 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.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| Even more reason for them to go. It's not good enough to
| continue taking it from Iran.
| Aloisius wrote:
| 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.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| I fought in Iraq.
| Aloisius wrote:
| 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?
| firesteelrain wrote:
| 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.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| > 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?
| firesteelrain wrote:
| No, the 300 drone strikes.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan
| nebula8804 wrote:
| From your link: "However, despite the public opposition
| of Pakistani officials, multiple former Prime Ministers
| gave covert permission to the United States to carry out
| these attacks."
|
| Makes sense, they were in the tribal areas where I assume
| the government was losing control of their monsters.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| Point is we weren't at war with those countries.
|
| Clinton - Yugoslavia 1999
|
| Obama - Airstrikes on Libya in 2011
|
| Goes back to the War Powers Act of 1973.
| emilsedgh wrote:
| Impressive appetite for war.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| Thanks!
| the_gipsy wrote:
| Are you ready for another 9/11?
| firesteelrain wrote:
| Come on man. Do you really want blood on your hands with
| that comment?
| the_gipsy wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand what you mean, perhaps my
| comment sounded snarky? But I don't think it's
| unwarranted either.
|
| 9/11 was not a direct response to any US invasion, but
| the London and Madrid bombings were a direct response to
| the second Iraq invasion. I would be surprised if there
| will be no terrorist attacks on American soil.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| In those cases it was performed by non state actors
|
| Iran is a state which cannot project power. If they do
| try to hit the homeland via proxy you can almost
| guarantee we will hit back harder.
|
| They didn't do much after we killed their general who
| also was a sponsor of terrorism in the region. Any
| effects will be regionalized
| the_gipsy wrote:
| I don't know why you are so confident that no terrorist
| attacks will happen this time. I would argue that now
| it's even worse, because Israel is pulling strings. Every
| single Trump "deal" has fallen flat, he just now realized
| that smear campaigns don't work on an international
| level. But bombing a country to submit them to sign some
| deal is not going to work out either - you need to bomb
| AND talk smooth to get something, but Trump is basically
| just talking shit as usual. It won't work out unless he
| blows it up into a full ground invasion, with countless
| people dying - including Americans.
|
| There will be another 9/11.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| > There will be another 9/11
|
| Then this just confirms that Iran is a terrorist regime.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| Just like the USA and Israel. Don't complain later.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| Not going to happen
|
| Iran will do some nominal attacks. There is little power
| projection that they will do. I bet they will focus their
| attacks on Israel which has been happening already.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| But why not? Do you think that the general sentiment is
| somehow gone? Or that you can submit terrorists by force?
| firesteelrain wrote:
| Because Iran's leadership isn't stupid. They know a full-
| on attack against the US would bring overwhelming
| retaliation and possibly collapse the regime. They've
| been hit before (like when Soleimani was killed) and
| their response was pretty measured. They'll do something
| to save face. Maybe hit a US base through proxies or ramp
| up attacks on Israel-but a direct war with the US? Not
| worth it for them. Too much to lose.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| 9/11 and the other attacks were not a war, precisely.
|
| You'll get a decade of terrorism, and the more you bomb
| Iran the worse it will get.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| I don't think we'd see something like 9/11 again. Attacks
| on the US homeland bring a level of blowback that even
| Iran's hardliners would want to avoid. But I totally
| agree there'll be fallout in the region. Expect more
| proxy attacks on US bases, shipping lanes, and of course
| Israel. That kind of long, drawn-out pressure is way more
| in line with how Iran operates. Not total war
|
| But why does Iran get to take workers hostage for 444
| days in 1979, conduct Beirut embassy bombing in 1983,
| then the Beirut barracks bombing in same year, 1982-1991
| Hezbollah (Iran sponsored) kidnappings of Americans in
| Lebanon, TWA 847 Hijacking, December 1983 Kuwait Embassy
| Bombing, June 1996 Khobar Towers Bombing, multiple EFP
| attacks on US forces in Iraq, May 2011 Camp Liberty
| Rocket Attack, 2011 IRGC plot to assassinate US
| officials, Dec 2019 Kirkuk base attack, etc
|
| How is this any different than your 9/11 scenario and
| Iran has been doing it for 40 years?
| dunekid wrote:
| Fought? Was it a fight? Killing civilians from choppers?
| No American ever fought in Iraq.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| Ok
| spacechild1 wrote:
| Are you proud of that?
| energy123 wrote:
| 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.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| > 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.
| jopsen wrote:
| 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.
| farts_mckensy wrote:
| 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.
| Cyclone_ wrote:
| Agree that they can't retaliate through their military, but
| if they did it would likely be through terror attacks on
| civilians.
| dudefeliciano wrote:
| 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.
| gorbachev wrote:
| It's going to be a very bad time for American interests and
| people outside of the United States in the next few years.
| archsurface wrote:
| Reversion to mean. Pre-78.
| sorcerer-mar wrote:
| 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!
| archsurface wrote:
| I like this answer because you pretend you're arguing
| against the comment without actually addressing anything.
| margalabargala wrote:
| They addressed all substance in the comment though
| archsurface wrote:
| If only you had some.
| margalabargala wrote:
| I was just trying to be consistent with the comment
| chain. I wouldn't want to stick out.
| archsurface wrote:
| Are you five years old or retarded?
| margalabargala wrote:
| No, neither, so I guess I do unusually stick out in this
| comment thread...so much for that.
| andrepd wrote:
| The dictatorship that was so hated that it led to a plurality
| of people supporting an Ayatollah?
| TeeMassive wrote:
| 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.
| fallingknife wrote:
| 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.
| handfuloflight wrote:
| > 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?
| TeeMassive wrote:
| And now every regime who feared getting regime-changed
| will have an interest of developing the bomb. Gaddafi
| effect is real.
| TeeMassive wrote:
| 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.
| abletonlive wrote:
| "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.
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| 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.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| 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.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| 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..
| abletonlive wrote:
| > By that point, he had alienated every single potential
| ally (including Iran)
|
| It's so funny that you can't see the parallels
| Cyph0n wrote:
| 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.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| 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?
| abletonlive wrote:
| 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.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| 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.
| TeeMassive wrote:
| KIAs ratio is not what determine a war's success
| yonisto wrote:
| This is a fanatic regime. I will have its people eating
| grass before giving up on anything.
| dh2022 wrote:
| 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.
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| << 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?
| unethical_ban wrote:
| 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.
| klipt wrote:
| 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.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Comparing the plausible deniability of a nuclear bomb to
| grenade launchers seems a stretch.
| roughly wrote:
| > 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.
| dralley wrote:
| 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.
| roughly wrote:
| 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.
| dralley wrote:
| 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".
| invalidname wrote:
| 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.
| roughly wrote:
| 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."
| invalidname wrote:
| 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.
| roughly wrote:
| 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.
| invalidname wrote:
| > 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.
| teleforce wrote:
| 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
| invalidname wrote:
| > Not sure why are you very adamant in defending Israel's
| govt inhuman actions in all your postings? How do you
| sleep at night?
|
| I don't sleep great with all the constant rocket alarms
| because we're under fire and I have to take my kids to
| the safe room.
|
| I'm not defending the Israeli government and very much
| didn't vote for them. I do explain specific policies that
| do make sense and the logic behind them.
|
| > Not condoning suicide attack but early zionists in
| Israel are all the same attacking civilians by the same
| actions,
|
| Nope. First off the use of the word "zionist" as a
| derogatory term is problematic. It just means "patriot"
| or the desire to live in Israel.
|
| There were early attacks before the formation of Israel
| that can be broadly described as terrorist attacks. The
| difference in the severity and violence is staggering.
| E.g. the worst example is the hotel bombing:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
|
| But here are some huge differences:
|
| * They called in advance to warn about the bomb - this
| was ignored due to human error
|
| * They were hunted down by moderate Israelis
|
| > and after more than hundreds years the autrocities
| still continue until today albeit in different inhuman
| forms
|
| Here's a different take. Palestinians spent the past 120
| years constantly fighting the Jews. Losing and making
| things worse for themselves. Had they accepted the Jews
| right to exist by their side we could have all prospered.
| Israel gave them multiple chances to end this. It offered
| them a state twice. It even left Gaza and cleared the
| settlements. Instead the people voted in Hamas and
| proceeded to take the billions given to them in order to
| build rockets and a war machine against Israel.
|
| I'm not saying that Israel is innocent here. But as a
| country Israel did pretty much anything one could expect
| under such a situation.
|
| > Worst now they're using indiscriminate military
| bombings against Palestinian people mostly women and
| children
|
| Again. Not true and relies on false numbers/narratives.
| Bombing is very discriminate and it's based on
| intelligence. It's coordinated with legal oversight.
| There are failures for sure, but Israel is doing more to
| avoid civilian deaths than any country in history.
|
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/05/far-past-
| time-to...
|
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/04/01/hamas-
| drop...
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2025/03
| /pa...
|
| Hell, the IDF even calls people on the phone to make sure
| they evacuate: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-
| east-67327079
|
| > 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.
|
| Nope. It's the fact that you believe a false narrative
| propagated by Hamas that is the problem. That gives them
| an incentive to keep sacrificing Palestinian civilians to
| erode support for Israel under the false hope that it
| will cause trigger the countries demise.
|
| > 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?.
|
| I suggest looking at the demographics of Israel. Israel
| has one of the highest ratios of secular/atheists. It is
| a deeply liberal state. Tel Aviv is more gay than San
| Francisco. My kids go to school with Muslim kids who are
| also Israeli citizens and 20% of the population.
|
| Hell, if I watched the nonsense John Oliver says I'd
| probably also hate Israel. The fact is, it's a very
| different country from the narrative some people are
| driving. The supposed facts you chose are deeply cherry
| picked.
|
| But the people you're supposedly defending would stone a
| gay person or a woman for the crime of being raped. Have
| been behind multiple terrorist attacks against civilians
| in busses, malls, coffee shops and embassies. Have killed
| Americans and held them hostage. These are bad people.
|
| Worse, their goal isn't independence. Their goal is to
| kill 10M Israelis. From the river to the sea means kill
| all Israelis.
| teleforce wrote:
| >I don't sleep great with all the constant rocket alarms
| because we're under fire and I have to take my kids to
| the safe room.
|
| If you are direct descendants of the original Jews that
| have been living in the area for many centuries, I really
| hope that you and your family are safe from all the
| troubles.
|
| But if you're of the new recent Jewish immigrants to the
| promised land of Israel, I've really bad news for you.
| Personally I'd migrate elsewhere than accidently caught
| in the perpetual crossfire [1],[2],[3].
|
| > Israel has one of the highest ratios of
| secular/atheists
|
| I'm not sure whether you're naive or pretending to be
| naive, but don't be fool to think that the Israel -
| Palestinian conflict is a nationalist or secular agenda,
| it's not and it's never was. It's highly religious matter
| and as you probably know the area surrounding Jerusalem
| is the holy land site for the three world's major
| religions namely Jewish, Christian and Islam, and the
| Jerusalem is mentioned specifically inside the Old
| Testament, New Testament and Quran, all originally in
| Semite based languages.
|
| The root causes are religious and the solutions are also
| going to be religious based solutions, and those who
| think otherwise is either naive or in-denial, or both.
| There were already many many wars fought in the name of
| religions in Jerusalem, from David vs Goliath to
| subsequent Jewish wars with Persian and Roman, several
| hundreds years of Roman/Byzantine - Persian wars, several
| hundreds years of Crusades - Muslim wars, and now the
| Israel - Palestinian hundred years wars [1],[2],[3].
|
| Fun facts, in the Quran Jewish people were mostly
| referred as Bani Israel (son of Israel or Yaakob/Jacob)
| not Yahudi as normally referred in the Arabic language,
| and both Cristians and Jewish together were referred as
| the People of the Books. The term 'Israel' is being used
| in the Quran more than thousands years ago, ironically
| it's being adopted by current Israel govt.
|
| Another fun facts, most of the US Presidents (45) are
| descendants of the Eleanor of Aquitaine [4]. She's the
| Queen of France and later after her divorce, Queen of
| England. She's the mother of King Richard the Lionheart,
| the infamous Crusades King l, and also mother of King
| John Plantagenet. She's also the major sponsor and player
| of early Crusades [5].
|
| [1] Jewish - Roman wars:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_wars
|
| [2] Roman - Persian Wars:
|
| https://www.heritage-
| history.com/index.php?c=resources&s=war...
|
| [3] Crusades:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
|
| [4] US Presidential Relationships to King John
| Plantagenet:
|
| https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:US_Presidential_Relat
| ion...
|
| [5] Eleanor of Aquitaine:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_of_Aquitaine
| invalidname wrote:
| > If you are direct descendants of the original Jews that
| have been living in the area for many centuries, I really
| hope that you and your family are safe from all the
| troubles.
|
| That is an very problematic take. Some would might
| consider it racist.
|
| Judia was here. That's a historic fact. Somehow you
| decided that the timeline for this being the "native
| country of a given people" is exactly in the right
| timeline to exclude the Jews. Like our right for the
| country has somehow elapsed because we experienced a
| genocide and didn't come back in time to reclaim our lost
| country...
|
| Not that it matters but both me and my spouse were born
| in Israel as was the vast majority of this country. The
| claim that we're westerners is ludicrous and part of the
| typical anti-Israel propaganda.
|
| My parents immigrated. My father escaped Morocco, my
| spouses father escaped Yemen. They both lost their homes
| as did 40% of the Jews who came to Israel from the
| east/south. Our mother's sides had vast families in
| Europe. Again a pretty common story...
|
| > But if you're of the new recent Jewish immigrants to
| the promised land of Israel, I've really bad news for
| you. Personally I'd migrate elsewhere than accidently
| caught in the perpetual crossfire.
|
| This sort of rhetoric is even more problematic. Many Jews
| are looking at people who say that and feel that Israel
| is our only home. This promotes Israeli nationalism and
| immigration to Israel.
|
| Every time I'm in Europe and see the "pro-Palestine"
| demonstrators I'm thankful that I live in Israel. We
| might get rockets occasionally, but I feel safer walking
| the streets even if we have suicide bombers and
| shootings. At least we're together.
|
| > I'm not sure whether you're naive or pretending to be
| naive, but don't be fool to think that the Israel -
| Palestinian conflict is a nationalist or secular agenda,
| it's not and it's never was.
|
| I've been here for the past 50 years. I've had youth
| activities with Palestinian youths in the 80s and 90s. I
| know this very well.
|
| I didn't hint in any waythat it's a secular conflict.
| It's 100% a religious conflict.
|
| I said that Israel is mostly secular and had only one
| religious prime minister (for one year) and he had a
| Muslim party in his cabinet which was one of the most
| diverse in history.
|
| That means that the religious problem that is at the root
| of the conflict is more to blame on the deeply religious
| element... Which is not Israel.
|
| > It's highly religious matter and as you probably know
| the area surrounding Jerusalem is the holy land site for
| the three world's major religions namely Jewish,
| Christian and Islam, and the Jerusalem is mentioned
| specifically inside the Old Testament, New Testament and
| Quran, all originally in Semite based languages.
|
| Are you seriously mansplaining my home country and its
| history to me?
|
| > The term Israel was used in the Quran more than
| thousands it's being adopted by current Israel govt.
|
| It's from the old testament, sons of Israel. I read the
| books.
| roughly wrote:
| 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?
| invalidname wrote:
| > I sincerely hope you and your family stay safe and can
| know peace.
|
| Thanks and appreciated.
|
| > my genuine hope is that people everywhere can live in
| peace and safety.
|
| Same. Unfortunately, bad people do exist and pacifism is
| a luxury we can't afford.
|
| > unless you've got Bibi's private number, in which case
| - get dialing, damn
|
| We demonstrate a lot. Some in-front of his house. He's an
| a*hole megalomaniac that just doesn't care about
| anything. But I guess you have your own version of
| that...
|
| > If your people were under threat, would you sacrifice
| yourself to save them?
|
| Self sacrifice is very different to walking into a bus in
| the middle of Tel Aviv where you have children and other
| Muslims and blowing yourself up. Notice that people did
| it during the Oslo accord period, not for the purpose of
| "protecting their family". They did it to stop the peace
| process from happening and were successful.
|
| The goal of Hamas is the exact opposite of what you
| describe. Their goal is to prevent peace with Israel. Oct
| 7th happened because they were afraid Israel would make a
| deal with Saudi Arabia which would lead to a Palestinian
| state. They don't want that, they want the whole country.
|
| 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).
|
| > Do you think they'd go to heaven?
|
| They believe that if a Palestinian child dies during the
| conflict they go to heaven. That essentially gives them a
| license to "sacrifice" children of other Palestinians as
| part of their holy war.
|
| > This is why I keep pressing on this: under what
| circumstances would you do the same things that they're
| doing?
|
| No. I'd compromise and build a country. That is what the
| majority of Palestinians want. That is why the
| Palestinian authority never joined Hamas's war against
| Israel.
|
| > (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.)
|
| Sure. It's in the old testament I know. tmvt npshy `m
| plyshtym Roughly translated: "My sole will die with the
| philistines" which is fitting. But we grew up as did the
| Christians who were also pretty crazy. The same is true
| for most Muslims, as I said... My kids study in school
| with Muslims. They are fine people. Hamas is a different
| breed.
|
| > I'd say one other thing, which is that Hamas is a
| militant group which considers themselves under
| existential siege and behaves accordingly
|
| That isn't true. They had the freedom to do whatever they
| wanted and made an explicit choice. Israel literally paid
| them billions in a failed attempt to make them more
| moderate.
|
| They continue to make that choice by refusing the release
| of the 53 Israeli hostages which would end the war.
| roughly wrote:
| > But I guess you have your own version of that...
|
| Indeed we do :-)
|
| > That is why the Palestinian authority never joined
| Hamas's war against Israel.
|
| The PA's reward for this is the settlers.
|
| I think a basic problem for Israel here is that some
| relatively small percent of the population wants
| genocide, and they're the ones who've been driving the
| cart for the last decade or so.
|
| What, to you, is the realistic road to a two-state
| solution?
|
| With regards to the hostages - to an outside eye,
| Israel's bombing campaign doesn't really seem to indicate
| they're overly worried about the health and safety of
| those 53 remaining hostages.
| invalidname wrote:
| > The PA's reward for this is the settlers.
|
| Yes. That should be the real outrage here.
|
| The extreme-right fascists in the government are indeed
| using Oct 7th as an excuse to make the west-bank worse. I
| hope we can kick them out of office in the next election
| but the Iran thing shuffles the deck a bit and reduced
| some of the hate against Bibi.
|
| > I think a basic problem for Israel here is that some
| relatively small percent of the population wants
| genocide, and they're the ones who've been driving the
| cart for the last decade or so.
|
| I don't think they want Genocide. They look at the
| Palestinian extremists and say that they will never
| change. No matter what we try they will always try to
| kill us. So if it's us or them it should be us.
|
| I get what they are saying. The fact that Palestinians
| voted for Hamas shocked us all back in the day. The
| problem is that Palestinians don't have stable leadership
| that we can talk to and trust. We also have pretty poor
| leaders since Rabin.
|
| > What, to you, is the realistic road to a two-state
| solution?
|
| I used to think there is no other option. That we might
| take a detour and get there eventually after all the pain
| since there's no other realistic option. Now I'm afraid
| that the Israeli extreme right might rise to power. The
| anti-Israel sentiment is actually fueling it which is
| pretty horrifying.
|
| I hope calm voices will take the Saudi deal which can
| truly revolutionize the middle east. But right now I
| think we need to calm down. We've been in nonstop war
| since 2023 and it puts you in a fight or flight mode.
| People are picking up extreme stances as a result.
|
| > With regards to the hostages - to an outside eye,
| Israel's bombing campaign doesn't really seem to indicate
| they're overly worried about the health and safety of
| those 53 remaining hostages.
|
| Bibi doesn't want them back and Hamas don't want to
| release them. He knows that if they will be back he will
| have to end the war and then might lose his government.
| Now with the Iran campaign it might finally give him the
| incentive to close on a reasonable deal.
| roughly wrote:
| > I don't think they want Genocide. They look at the
| Palestinian extremists and say that they will never
| change. No matter what we try they will always try to
| kill us. So if it's us or them it should be us.
|
| This is a bit of semantics, though - "if it's us or them
| it should be us" is advocating genocide (I'm not saying
| _you're_ advocating genocide, to be clear). I think this
| is one of the problems for Israeli society, especially
| post-Oct 7 - the only group with a coherent picture of
| what they want and how to get there is the extreme right,
| and they're pushing for genocide, no matter how they
| phrase or qualify it. The semantics and the nuance of the
| conversation inside Israeli society isn't making it to
| the outside world, but the actions of the right wing
| hardliners are - that's what the rest of the world is
| seeing and responding to (and, for what it's worth, I'd
| suspect there's similar conversations happening inside of
| Palestine, too).
|
| > The fact that Palestinians voted for Hamas shocked us
| all back in the day.
|
| There's a couple sides to this - one was that Fatah was
| viewed as broadly corrupt and ineffective, and Hamas was
| the opposition party. I understand why Israel saw that as
| a Palestinian vote for Israeli genocide, but there's a
| credible claim that it was closer to, say, a Turkish vote
| for Erdogan or an Indian vote for Modi.
|
| The history of the Hamas government, especially in the
| early days, is an interesting one - the group made real
| signs that they were willing to de-escalate and move
| towards peace. There's a long history of the moment here:
| https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/cobban-breakout-
| hamas-... - but long story short, neither Israel nor
| America were willing to take a chance, and, again, right-
| wingers in Israel took actions that closed that road off.
|
| > The problem is that Palestinians don't have stable
| leadership that we can talk to and trust.
|
| Yeah, this is definitely a credible complaint from the
| Israeli side - probably the last person who could've
| conceivably been that person was Yasser Arafat, and even
| the people who worked closely to negotiate with him noted
| that he was a militant to his dying days (which were 20
| years ago).
|
| Regarding the road to peace, I think this is something
| that Israel needs to invest in if there's hope of a
| genuine two-state solution - there needs to be efforts to
| build up Palestinian civil society and they need to show
| there's a credible reason for negotiating with Israel and
| genuine benefits to come from it, which I don't think
| Palestinians broadly believe right now.
|
| > I hope calm voices will take the Saudi deal which can
| truly revolutionize the middle east. But right now I
| think we need to calm down. We've been in nonstop war
| since 2023 and it puts you in a fight or flight mode.
| People are picking up extreme stances as a result.
|
| Yeah, this is going to be really hard to unwind -
| especially since I don't know what kind of committed
| partner for peace you're going to have on the other side
| of the Gaza wall going forward. The amount of despair
| visited on those people isn't creating fertile ground for
| the thawing of relations for the next generation or so.
|
| Netanyahu has carved his name into the history of Israel
| at this point - I sincerely hope y'all can find a way
| forward towards peace.
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| >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.
| invalidname wrote:
| > 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.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| >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.
| invalidname wrote:
| 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.
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| > 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...
| invalidname wrote:
| > 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.th
| enationalnews.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.
| netsharc wrote:
| 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
| invalidname wrote:
| > 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.
| mgiampapa wrote:
| They are a threat as a terrorist, not as a military
| force.
| dralley wrote:
| Well, it certainly _was_ the greatest threat. It 's
| unlikely to remain so.
| crystal_revenge wrote:
| 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.
| invalidname wrote:
| 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.
| timeon wrote:
| > does not want to use a nuclear missile, nobody really
| does
|
| One country already did.
| tguvot wrote:
| 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
| handfuloflight wrote:
| > 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?
| RickJWagner wrote:
| Evangelical here.
|
| That statement is ignorant.
| handfuloflight wrote:
| Do you speak for them all? If you do, please clarify.
| RickJWagner wrote:
| 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.
| handfuloflight wrote:
| 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/2018/05/1
| 4/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.
| RickJWagner wrote:
| 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?
| handfuloflight wrote:
| They, as in those evangelicals who subscribe to
| apocalyptic accelerationism.
| RickJWagner wrote:
| 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.
| hedora wrote:
| 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.
| jrflowers wrote:
| 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_Isr
| ael
|
| 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.
| tolerance wrote:
| 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.
| handfuloflight wrote:
| I came for the flame war, I stayed for the analysis.
| RickJWagner wrote:
| 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.
| handfuloflight wrote:
| I qualified twice that I did not mean it that as a
| blanket statement, so what new point are you trying to
| make?
| RickJWagner wrote:
| 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.
| handfuloflight wrote:
| You need to look at things in context. This was about
| specifically about evangelicals who showed support for
| Israel, this in itself is a subset.
|
| Everyone else in this thread seems to have understood it
| was not a blanket statement.
| tolerance wrote:
| > 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.
| RickJWagner wrote:
| 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.
| tolerance wrote:
| In a way, I understand why his initial remark was stupid
| to make.
|
| Especially when you say,
|
| > 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.
|
| And this is exactly why I raised my initial assumptions
| to you and why your answer was helpful.
|
| When I asked:
|
| > 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)?
|
| What I tried to communicate was that my assumption is
| that your religious views are _not_ in lock step with
| your political views in the ways that the generalization
| in question would suggest.
|
| So when you say:
|
| > Like many people, my religious views are not lock step
| with my political ones and the relationship is not
| straightforward.
|
| This makes we want to understand what your views and
| their greater relationship are.
|
| Additionally, are you upset that he made a generalization
| and that's all this is about? Or are you upset that he
| made a generalization that doesn't apply to you and
| you're trying to explain to us why that isn't the case. =
|
| > I'm not deeply offended, but I do want to signal that
| jokes generalizing people are generally not funny.
|
| Right. But I don't want to meander toward a discussion on
| humor, dry wit, et cetera, because although I identified
| the remark in question as a joke, that's all it is on the
| surface and it's implications are a lot more serious than
| that. Which is exactly why I would assume it isn't funny
| to you. And what makes the remark all the wiser in some
| ways, although not to you.
|
| What I really want to figure out is what about his remark
| specifically upset you _post-generalization_ , If
| according to your own answer to my assumption, you _are_
| an Evangelical who supports whatever you think is going
| on in Israel under the theological pretenses that other
| Evangelicals are known for.
|
| [Previously I described that as "genocide", but I
| modified it because I don't to make it sound like I'm
| trying to manipulate you into agreeing to a part of a
| premise that you don't agree with. I'm trying to dialogue
| in as best of faith as I can].
|
| I love handfuloflight. He doesn't know this. But I do.
| And he does know now. And I think his wit backfired, for
| the reasons I've already explained.
|
| And as much as your offense constrains you to this odd
| posture that I feel so compelled to unravel, I think that
| his wit constrained him to come up with a concept
| ("apocalyptic accelerationism") that constrains him to
| now having to argue his way outside of a an ad-hoc
| generalization.
|
| At this point, the generalization that handfuloflight
| makes isn't about "accelerating the apocalypse" as much
| as the influence that Israel's geopolitics have on
| Evangelical beliefs concerning the apocalypse.
|
| From your side, this is what I want to learn. If you
| don't want to keep beating this HN thread, my email is in
| my profile.
|
| And if handfuloflight feels like I've wronged him in
| anyway, he should let me know however he feels is
| suitable.
| handfuloflight wrote:
| Could I have had added more rigor to make it air tight
| that my remark was not a generalization? Yes.
|
| Did I? No. Because I thought that was not necessary when
| the response was in context about a _specific group_ of
| people already: evangelicals who support Israel. Those
| who would understand what my remark was referring to,
| would already know that these evangelicals are a specific
| set; hence I saw no need to qualify it.
|
| When Rick asked me for clarification twice if I meant
| that as a generalization, I said in clear terms that I
| did not.
|
| If someone knows about these tendencies among the
| evangelicals, they would have the requisite knowledge to
| know it is not held among all evangelicals.
|
| So if what I said was meant to be a joke, then it was
| more of an "in joke." But I didn't mean it as a joke, as
| much as I meant it as, I admit, a reactionary opening to
| discussing about this specific group's influence on US
| politics.
|
| I am not offended. And, I love you too.
| skissane wrote:
| 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.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| 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.
| RickJWagner wrote:
| I agree, there are some.
|
| But not all, or even most.
| jrflowers wrote:
| 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!
| lunar-whitey wrote:
| 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.
| jrflowers wrote:
| 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.
| lunar-whitey wrote:
| 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.
| RickJWagner wrote:
| 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.
| jrflowers wrote:
| 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.
| eddythompson80 wrote:
| Thank you for speaking up man. I'm an evangelical atheist
| and get sick of people generalizing what all evangelicals
| think too.
| shadowfox wrote:
| What exactly is an "evangelical atheist" ?
| handfuloflight wrote:
| At one point in the history of the Internet, it was
| synonymous with Redditor.
| YZF wrote:
| 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.
| hajile wrote:
| 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
| yyyk wrote:
| 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.
| paxys wrote:
| 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.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| What about the factions within the regime? Maybe someone is
| going to take responsibility for all these failures?
| standardUser wrote:
| > 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.
| narrator wrote:
| 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.
| jjk166 wrote:
| 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.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| 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.
| Beefin wrote:
| you willing to take that risk?
| einpoklum wrote:
| 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.
| vkou wrote:
| 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.
| Beefin wrote:
| 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.
| vkou wrote:
| 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.
| hotmeals wrote:
| 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.
| Beefin wrote:
| more like if we see you're getting nukes, go bust -
| that's a world i much prefer to live in.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| _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.
| cbg0 wrote:
| There's still television and radio.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| I talked to my friend in Iran today online, shorly before
| the US bombing.
| sfifs wrote:
| I would worry about the fallout to the rest of us - Persian
| Gulf closed to shipping,maybe oil fields attacked, Oil at 300,
| Recession.
| nirav72 wrote:
| 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.
| awnird wrote:
| Didn't you guys say the same thing about the Houthis? How
| do you still fall for this?
| nirav72 wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway_dang wrote:
| 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.
| sfifs wrote:
| 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.
| philistine wrote:
| I chose a very good time to buy an electric car.
| gorbachev wrote:
| 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.
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| Iran already closed Red Sea.
| mikewarot wrote:
| 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.
| klipt wrote:
| > 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?
| roughly wrote:
| > 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.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| " 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.
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| I think you have a typo, you wrote "Iran" instead of "the
| United States".
| invalidname wrote:
| 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.
| hajile wrote:
| 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.
| r14c wrote:
| 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.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| You are assuming they're rational actors, and extremist
| religious ideologies are by their very nature irrational.
| all_factz wrote:
| 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.
| margalabargala wrote:
| Iran funded Hamas who did October 7th. That is the
| original escalation that kicked all this off. The region
| was (relatively) quiet until then.
| all_factz wrote:
| October 7th was a reaction to Trump's "Abraham Accords"
| which benefitted Sunni countries at the expense of Iran.
| margalabargala wrote:
| 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."
| FergusArgyll wrote:
| Iran FM saying no to negotiations on Friday was _insane_
|
| https://www.yahoo.com/news/irans-foreign-minister-says-
| no-10...
| mdni007 wrote:
| 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.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway_dang wrote:
| 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.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| Do you really think that they wouldn't have done this by now
| if they could?
| jimbob45 wrote:
| I had the same expectation myself but now everyone will be
| looking out for that type of attack.
| anonnon wrote:
| > 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.
| 8note wrote:
| 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
| yibg wrote:
| 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.
| seydor wrote:
| > 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
| locallost wrote:
| 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.
| tryauuum wrote:
| 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
| drecho wrote:
| 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.
| avoutos wrote:
| 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.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| I must've missed the part where Iran invaded Czechoslovakia
| and Poland.
| kelnos wrote:
| I think GP's point was that it's better to act now,
| _before_ Iran does the equivalent of invading
| Czechoslovakia or Poland.
| siltcakes wrote:
| Israel has been doing that for almost 80 years _and_ they
| have nuclear weapons.
| int_19h wrote:
| What would be the equivalent of Czechoslovakia and Poland
| and this scenario?
| jjk166 wrote:
| Ah yes, like when we prevented Germany from ever being a
| problem again with the Treaty of Versailles.
| user3939382 wrote:
| 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.
| runako wrote:
| 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.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| What if Iran simply didn't develop nuclear weapons? Have
| you considered that option?
| runako wrote:
| 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?
| lwansbrough wrote:
| 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.
| euW3EeBe wrote:
| > 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...
| runako wrote:
| 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.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| 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.
| runako wrote:
| 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.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| 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.
| runako wrote:
| 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.
| nsingh2 wrote:
| 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...
| lwansbrough wrote:
| > 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.
| nsingh2 wrote:
| > 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?
| yibg wrote:
| 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.
| HellDunkel wrote:
| If you botch the "quiet" part this seems more of a plan
| to get bombed quickly.
| yibg wrote:
| 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.
| jjk166 wrote:
| They tried that. Saddam gassed them.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Some people say Iran having a nuke isn't the threat some
| think it is.
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxxVxtHK2M
| Ekaros wrote:
| 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?
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| Ekaros wrote:
| 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.
| HEmanZ wrote:
| 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.
| cmurf wrote:
| 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.
| reassess_blind wrote:
| Illegal? I don't think that factors into any decision made
| here.
| cmurf wrote:
| 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?
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| Very definitely is not illegal in American law.
| msgodel wrote:
| 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.
| cmilton wrote:
| 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.
| foogazi wrote:
| They have to believe it to have a reason to like Trump
| b0sk wrote:
| It is fascinating. He lies so much, keeps repeating those
| lies and somehow people start believing those lies.
| Nathanba wrote:
| which was widely believed to be a mere gesture to appease
| warhawks and that's why they only hit a few empty landing
| strips
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| 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.
| fallingknife wrote:
| 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.
| lesuorac wrote:
| Every accusation from Trump is something he himself is
| doing or thing about doing.
|
| It's not random.
| fallingknife wrote:
| 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.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| 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.
| lesuorac wrote:
| 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
| standardUser wrote:
| > 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.
| ekianjo wrote:
| He did strike Syria during his first term
| MarkMarine wrote:
| 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.
| EnPissant wrote:
| If not to build a nuke, why have a secret uranium enrichment
| facility built over 250 ft under a mountain?
| MarkMarine wrote:
| Credible deterrent against stuff like this?
| EnPissant wrote:
| > 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?
| MarkMarine wrote:
| 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.
| christophilus wrote:
| 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.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Straw, camel, back.
|
| 2024 Trump is using the power of the executive in ways
| even more grotesquely than 2016 Trump.
| archsurface wrote:
| They could have simply had IAEA inspections.
| smashah wrote:
| 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.
| archsurface wrote:
| Communication lines are always open for discussion and
| negotiation; the end of one agreement doesn't mean no
| more agreements.
| yibg wrote:
| Agreement requires 2 sides doesn't it? Who's agreeing on
| the American side?
| Terr_ wrote:
| 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."
| yyyk wrote:
| 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.
| EnPissant wrote:
| There is no non-nuclear weapon purpose valuable enough to
| build such a facility. It's obviously for nuclear bombs.
| codedokode wrote:
| So every country which has facilities to enrich uranium,
| needs to be bombed, correct?
| EnPissant wrote:
| 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.
| kelnos wrote:
| 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.
| buzzerbetrayed wrote:
| If you honestly think Iran is enriching uranium for clean
| energy, I have a bridge to sell you.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It would have worked if Iran had stopped also paying people
| to shoot missiles so often and donating to kill Ukraine.
| smashah wrote:
| 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.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| 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.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| 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".
| jjk166 wrote:
| The publicly revealed, internationally inspected secret
| uranium enrichment facility?
| shihab wrote:
| 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...
| archsurface wrote:
| Gabbard has recently stated that's not true, that she was
| quoted out of context.
| shihab wrote:
| Her statement directly contradicted her testimony. After
| recent Trump's open dismissal of her remark, she had to say
| this to keep her job.
| archsurface wrote:
| She stated they had unprecedented levels of enriched
| uranium for a country without weapons.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| 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).
| kurtis_reed wrote:
| The intelligence was that Iran was moving toward a nuke, they
| just weren't there yet.
| jjk166 wrote:
| The intelligence said the opposite, that they had not decided
| to develop a nuke.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| hnthrowaway0315 wrote:
| 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.
| k310 wrote:
| Declaration of War vs. Authorization for Use of Military Force:
| How America Goes to War
|
| https://govfacts.org/explainer/declaration-of-war-vs-authori...
| yyyk wrote:
| 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'.
| tguvot wrote:
| they tested implosion devices back in 2003
| https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-carried-implosion-tests-nucl...
|
| for totally civilian purposes...
| denkmoon wrote:
| 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.
| smashah wrote:
| 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.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| I guess this fatwa doesn't apply to Pak Army?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Why would Sunni leaders adhere to another sect's fatwas?
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Bombing a mountain spinning uranium around to find the right
| isotopes to make death spheres is an act of terrorism against
| uranium spinning around.
| smashah wrote:
| Vampires lack a reflection.
| arandomusername wrote:
| 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.
| tmnvix wrote:
| 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.
| arandomusername wrote:
| 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.
| tmnvix wrote:
| 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.
| tguvot wrote:
| 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.
| cbsks wrote:
| > 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.
| tmnvix wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONvjyKAr3-Y
|
| From about 2:50
|
| Also talks about the likely success of the 'bunker
| busters' at Fodrow.
| Glyptodon wrote:
| 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.
| klipt wrote:
| 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?
| Glyptodon wrote:
| 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.)
| paxys wrote:
| Ukraine and Iran have showed that if a country doesn't have
| nukes they don't have sovereignty.
| ericmay wrote:
| 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.
| paxys wrote:
| 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?
| ericmay wrote:
| 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.
| nemothekid wrote:
| 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.
| ekianjo wrote:
| Taiwan has no nukes, and still has not been invaded by
| China.
| pixelpoet wrote:
| I don't expect this to stay true for very long :(
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Taiwan has a good friend with nukes though.
| ekianjo wrote:
| Most countries have good friends with nukes. Iran
| included.
| jopsen wrote:
| Does Iran have friends or are they more like business
| relationships?
|
| Even despite Trump, I think the US and many western
| countries have actual friends that would show up if bad
| things happened.
| anonnon wrote:
| The US isn't nuking China over Taiwan, and China
| maintains an explicit "no first use" policy.
| hajile wrote:
| 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).
| jordanb wrote:
| > 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/
| ericmay wrote:
| Ok and so now Canada isn't a sovereign country? That
| would be astonishing news to Canadians everywhere! Can
| someone tell them??!
| twothreeone wrote:
| I was looking forward to an interesting argument, sadly
| it's just a very badly written opinion piece.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Thats because they have friends with nukes (or thought they
| did).
| tgv wrote:
| Iran also has friends wit nukes: Russian and China. And
| China does care: it needs a secure oil supply.
| have-a-break wrote:
| Next would be manufacturing your own smartphones. Sad that
| not making weapons and enslaving your own populace makes you
| subject to external countries.
| busterarm wrote:
| That is until some country proves that developing nukes means
| you no longer have a country.
|
| It looks like it might even be Iran.
| lesuorac wrote:
| 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.
| ExaltedPunt wrote:
| 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.
| csomar wrote:
| North Korea is another example.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Russia was the first nuclear armed state to lose territory to
| a retired comedian.
| abletonlive wrote:
| 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.
| siltcakes wrote:
| They can continue to bomb Israel at will. These minimal
| attacks will not stop that and there will be no regime
| change.
| abletonlive wrote:
| lol remind me in 2 weeks
| throwaway_dang wrote:
| Indeed. You'll be wrong but I doubt you'll have the
| integrity to discover why you're wrong.
| siltcakes wrote:
| This morning in Israel:
| https://x.com/warfareanalysis/status/1936669160215355395
| runako wrote:
| > 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.
| abletonlive wrote:
| 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.
| runako wrote:
| 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"?
| abletonlive wrote:
| 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
| runako wrote:
| 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.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Don't forget the $20T in entitlement spending/debt that
| the boomers paid themselves. War is small beans!
| fatbird wrote:
| 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?
| jjk166 wrote:
| 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.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It only works if you think victory was hitting the target.
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| What makes you think a ground invasion is likely?
| deepsquirrelnet wrote:
| 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.
| azurezyq wrote:
| Then it might be better that the country really has WMD.
|
| Otherwise uncle Sam will let you know you have them
| kurtis_reed wrote:
| Israel would say if Iran just stops attacking and threatening
| Israel then they wouldn't need to defend themselves.
| NekkoDroid wrote:
| As controversial of a figure he is, the Hasanabi Doctrine at
| play.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| hajile wrote:
| 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.
| anonnon wrote:
| > 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.
| sadaaqat wrote:
| I can see many problems with his plan.
| fldskfjdslkfj wrote:
| Prediction: Iran will fold somewhat quickly and history will
| remember this as good move.
| raincole wrote:
| 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.
| hkpack wrote:
| 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.
| ericmay wrote:
| Why would there be more migrants to Europe from Iran?
| hkpack wrote:
| 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.
| ericmay wrote:
| 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.
| hkpack wrote:
| 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.
| ericmay wrote:
| 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.
| Ray20 wrote:
| >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.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| gsibble wrote:
| 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.
| siltcakes wrote:
| Iran has been bombing Israeli targets at will, including Tel
| Aviv. Israel doesn't even have control over their own
| airspace.
| coffeefirst wrote:
| 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?
| discordance wrote:
| Noam Chomsky, "Is Iran a threat?" -
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxxVxtHK2M
|
| (... no)
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| dudefeliciano wrote:
| Since 1945 the United States of America never attacks
| countries that are actual threats, we should have learned
| this by now.
| fldskfjdslkfj wrote:
| > "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.
| Avshalom wrote:
| "Point / Counterpoint: This War Will Destabilize the Entire
| Mideast and Set Off a Shockwave of Anti-Americanism VS. No It
| Won't"
| riku_iki wrote:
| Iran and allies already did what they could during Gaza
| escalation. Their projection power is rather limited.
| carabiner wrote:
| 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.
| int_19h wrote:
| 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.
| biglyburrito wrote:
| 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.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > 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.
| 827a wrote:
| 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.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| 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.
| bagels wrote:
| With Trump in office, everybody should be seeking them out,
| Canada included.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I'm not sure what wise national defense policy would be. But
| I can't argue with anyone who might reach that conclusion.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| 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.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Yes, I hear nukes are dangerous.
| hajile wrote:
| 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.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| I will trust humanity on this view.
| ivape wrote:
| 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.
| komali2 wrote:
| 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.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| 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.
| hajile wrote:
| 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.
| anonnon wrote:
| > 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.
| Fraterkes wrote:
| Check your carbon-monoxide detectors
| twixfel wrote:
| 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.
| anonnon wrote:
| > Jesus what nonsense. Russia isn't threatening to annex
| Canada
|
| Russia would simply take as much of Canada's arctic as it
| liked, right now, with or without Canada having nukes, if
| it weren't for the United States.
| twixfel wrote:
| OK, but it isn't threatening to do. America is. You see
| the difference?
| xnx wrote:
| Did I miss the part where Congress declared war or is that passe?
| wmf wrote:
| It's not a war, it's a limited engagement or whatever.
| endemic wrote:
| A "special operation"
| sealeck wrote:
| A "special military operation", perhaps?
| oceansky wrote:
| Even Vietnam wasn't formally declared as a war. Last formal
| declaration was WWII.
| soraminazuki wrote:
| 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."
| goodluckchuck wrote:
| 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.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| 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.
| clipsy wrote:
| I agree, we should require Israel to surrender its nuclear
| weapons or subject them to the same consequences.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| They are a nuclear state. They have defacto special
| privileges. That's how it works. The US doesn't decide that.
| bagels wrote:
| Diplomacy was working until the US unilaterally withdrew from
| the treaty in 2018.
|
| There are solutions other than war to nonproliferation.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| 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.
| bagels wrote:
| I am blaming Trump. He did this. He withdrew from the
| treaty which led directly to this action today.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| 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.
| bagels wrote:
| 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?
| lwansbrough wrote:
| 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?
| codedokode wrote:
| Please remind why France, England, Israel are allowed to
| have weapons and Iran is not?
| throwawaythekey wrote:
| - 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.
| trhway wrote:
| 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.
| bagels wrote:
| It didn't work in Iraq. Why would it work here?
| trhway wrote:
| 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.
| bagels wrote:
| No boots on the ground... yet. We don't know how Iran
| reacts next. To their leadership, this is a pretty
| serious existential threat.
| trhway wrote:
| 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.
| corimaith wrote:
| 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.
| ethagnawl wrote:
| Stuxnext was quite an achievement, too -- aside from it
| escaping containment and all. Kudos to ... whoever it was
| that pulled that off.
| ivape wrote:
| 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.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Eh? Diplomatic measures famously failed to stop North Korea
| from acquiring nuclear weapons.
| ivape wrote:
| 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.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| 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.
| ivape wrote:
| 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.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| "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.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| 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?
| ivape wrote:
| You are a warmonger. Take your game somewhere else.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| 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?
| jack_h wrote:
| > 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.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| 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.
| arp242 wrote:
| 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.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| And to pile on, diplomacy with Iran was working until Trump
| fucked it up in 2018. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite
| d_States_withdrawal_fro...
| throwaway_dang wrote:
| 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.
| knowknow wrote:
| 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.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| 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.
| tdeck wrote:
| 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.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| 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.
| nradov wrote:
| 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/
| righthand wrote:
| This will surely reduce government spending.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| I mean I don't think anyone is still taking that goal
| seriously.
| awakeasleep wrote:
| 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.
| righthand wrote:
| 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.
| IdontKnowRust wrote:
| This is definitely a bold movement, I pray for peace, And hoping
| US stops jumping in conflicts that are not theirs
| nsingh2 wrote:
| 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
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| mandmandam wrote:
| 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
| lifeinthevoid wrote:
| Praying for peace will definitely help.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| 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.
| austin-cheney wrote:
| 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.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| This is probably the worst thing about Trump, he's let Bibi
| lead him around like a dog on a leash.
|
| Any other president would be infuriated with Bibi's actions,
| because they would know he's cornering the US. But he knew
| Trump was a pushover.
| I-M-S wrote:
| I guess any other president doesn't include Trump's direct
| predecessor, under whose watch Gaza was allowed to happen.
| 0dayz wrote:
| Allow Gaza to happen? You mean Biden approved of Oct 7?
| bravesoul2 wrote:
| No the "self defence" that happened in response to that.
| 1000s of tonnes of bombs shipped to kill civilians and
| enact genocide.
| 0dayz wrote:
| Self defense? Afaik it was a war that now is a genocidal
| war.
| ekam wrote:
| He means the genocide and forced starvation of over a
| hundred thousand innocent Palestinians
| 0dayz wrote:
| Biden was not in office when the war went from some
| genuine cause to full blown they can do whatever they
| want.
| hajile wrote:
| The people in Gaza have been starving for nearly 2 years
| now. Israel was stopping most food trucks from entering
| for well over a year of Biden's presidency.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| 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.
| hajile wrote:
| 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.
| Ar-Curunir wrote:
| Did we live through the same Biden presidency?
| tdeck wrote:
| A lot of folks were at brunch.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Weekend at Biden's was just ice cream.
| jordanb wrote:
| "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.
| nullhole wrote:
| > "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.
| vFunct wrote:
| Yes. Before Israel, when America had no enemies in the
| mideast. Thanks for confirming.
| cloverich wrote:
| Oil rose to prominence during this same period; Israel is
| a major factor but is certainly not the only or even most
| important issue.
| fastball wrote:
| Who _did_ have enemies in the ME? It was (as stated)
| mostly a vassal state.
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| 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...
| coffeemug wrote:
| 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.
| jordanb wrote:
| 1) Libya is not in the middle east.
|
| 2) This was before our war with Canada and just after our
| Quasi-war with France.
| margalabargala wrote:
| 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.
| woah wrote:
| Before Israel, the middle east was controlled by Great
| Britain
| snickerbockers wrote:
| 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
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| 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.
| Beefin wrote:
| 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.
| austin-cheney wrote:
| 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.
| Izikiel43 wrote:
| 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.
| bushbaba wrote:
| 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.
| hiddencost wrote:
| I guess that's better than "axis of evil".
|
| Looking forward to the strait of Hormuz shutting down...
| scruple wrote:
| Sounds like a good way to make China and Russia angry...
| cloverich wrote:
| 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?
| vbezhenar wrote:
| 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.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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).
| siltcakes wrote:
| 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).
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Iran killed too many Ukrainians.
| fastball wrote:
| I thought the claim was that Israel was mostly killing the
| children?
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| Female child journalists.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| Not really. In much of the middle east, Iran is detested
| and considered an immediate enemy.
| siltcakes wrote:
| That's not true at all.
| energy123 wrote:
| > 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.
| mrkeen wrote:
| > 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.
| energy123 wrote:
| 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.
| bigyabai wrote:
| > 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... All observers to trials since 1965
| have reported allegations of torture which have been made
| by defendants and have expressed their own conviction
| that prisoners are tortured for the purpose of obtaining
| confessions. Alleged methods of torture include whipping
| and beating, electric shocks, the extraction of nails and
| teeth, boiling water pumped into the rectum, heavy
| weights hung on the testicles, tying the prisoner to a
| metal table heated to white heat, inserting a broken
| bottle into the anus, and rape.
|
| Did "western liberals" get all that? Oh, I forgot this
| line by mistake! SAVAK was established in
| 1967 with help from both the CIA and the Israeli
| intelligence agency, Mossad.
| energy123 wrote:
| 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.
| bravesoul2 wrote:
| Is it really about the treaties. Like US is a world cop
| and good guy that honours all treaties?
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| 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?
| energy123 wrote:
| > "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.
| monkaiju wrote:
| 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...
| kmnc wrote:
| 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.
| greenavocado wrote:
| 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...
| twelve40 wrote:
| 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.
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| Depends, cutting off strait of hormuz could easily change
| that calculus a bit. Things can get unpredictable from here
| on now.
| twelve40 wrote:
| 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.
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| Futures do not disagree with you atm.
| csomar wrote:
| Afghanistan? Probably not. The other two are bordering China.
| I highly doubt they'll bow to the US instead.
| twelve40 wrote:
| 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.
| stackedinserter wrote:
| > 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)
| nebula8804 wrote:
| 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.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Possibly trivial additional point is that the oil traded
| between Iran and China using Chinese currency, not the US
| dollar.
| yencabulator wrote:
| 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.
| beefnugs wrote:
| 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?
| iw2rmb wrote:
| 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.
| duxup wrote:
| 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.
| reaperducer wrote:
| 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.
| greenavocado wrote:
| It was getting pretty quiet leading up to the moment Assad
| was deposed.
| jjk166 wrote:
| 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.
| jordanb wrote:
| Not since the Ottomans picked the wrong side in WWI.
| vdupras wrote:
| One question I have on my mind is: what side will they pick
| in WWIII?
| pjc50 wrote:
| Shortly before the assassination of Rabin?
| twelve40 wrote:
| 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.
| siltcakes wrote:
| What do you think all of the children of parents murdered by
| Israel will do? There will be much stronger resistance in the
| future.
| twelve40 wrote:
| 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.
| dudefeliciano wrote:
| preventive genocide
| greenavocado wrote:
| 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.
| jordanb wrote:
| 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."
| dralley wrote:
| 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.
| throwworhtthrow wrote:
| 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
| dralley wrote:
| 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.
| throwworhtthrow wrote:
| 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.
| csomar wrote:
| 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.
| einpoklum wrote:
| > There is zero reason to ever enrich beyond around 5% for
| civilian purposes,
|
| False.
|
| https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/69513/7643
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| They also have the delivery mechanism. A huge ballistic
| missile program.
| noufalibrahim wrote:
| 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.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| cryptozeus wrote:
| Iraq completely shut down post war so yeh its possible
| baobun wrote:
| 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.
| vFunct wrote:
| Iraq wasn't a populist movement. Iran is.
| jjk166 wrote:
| 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.
| enlightenedfool wrote:
| All that is supported by the American public buying defense
| stocks. Just new war strategies when party in power
| changes.
| FuckButtons wrote:
| 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.
| jjk166 wrote:
| 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.
| mrs6969 wrote:
| So russia can not attack a nuclear facility in ukraine, but us
| can in iran ? What am I missing ?
| jiggawatts wrote:
| 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.
| tgv wrote:
| 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.
| aaronmdjones wrote:
| > 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...
| jwilk wrote:
| > Enriched Uranium is less radioactive than natural Uranium
|
| [citation needed]
| mrs6969 wrote:
| 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 ?
| 15155 wrote:
| > 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
| zorobo wrote:
| 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.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| 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.
| mrs6969 wrote:
| 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. It 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.
| Spivak wrote:
| 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.
| senectus1 wrote:
| _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.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Which stock do I buy
| FuckButtons wrote:
| Not TSMC.
| cedws wrote:
| So is that the end of Iran's nuclear programme, or is there more
| to it?
| swagasaurus-rex wrote:
| This is just another square in my world war three bingo board.
| Sits pretty close to breaking the nuclear taboo square.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| swagasaurus-rex wrote:
| Annihilation, that would make a good square on the bingo
| board
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Statistics says even if it's true, unintended use
| probability sky rockets risking nuclear winter.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| amoss wrote:
| On the contrary, modern research shows that the effects
| would be more severe and long-lasting: https://agupubs.on
| linelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006jd00...
| giantg2 wrote:
| They're committed. They'll rebuild. Just as Stuxnet just
| delayed things.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Paper are committed to stop them it seems as well.
| hiddencost wrote:
| 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.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| hotmeals wrote:
| Terminator Skynet rules, they just delayed it.
| codedokode wrote:
| I am a little confused. Is bombing a sovereign country under far-
| fetched excuse considered ok or not today?
| grugagag wrote:
| 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.
| billfor wrote:
| It's OK.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| What is far fetched about preventing Iran from developing a
| nuclear weapon?
| sealeck wrote:
| Lack of nuclear weapon.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| 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?
| sealeck wrote:
| I mean do you think the Iranian government is more
| incentivised to build a nuclear weapon before or after??
| cbg0 wrote:
| The goal was to stop their progress, not reduce/increase
| incentives.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Why not take moral upper hand and first destroy all of your
| own nuclear weapons?
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| l33tbro wrote:
| 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.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Well, CSOCs are likely to get busy this week.
| anonu wrote:
| A consequential night for Israel: peace for many decades to come.
| I worry, however, that peace through bombing is not a permanent
| solution. Peace comes through diplomacy. Ideology does not die in
| the rubble.
| deepsquirrelnet wrote:
| Is "NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE" about to become the new "MISSION
| ACCOMPLISHED"?
| blobbers wrote:
| Is it safe to blow up a nuclear plant? Doesn't that cause bad
| things to spread?
| coliveira wrote:
| Yes, but who said that Trump cares about any consequences of
| his actions?
| blobbers wrote:
| It sounds like this stuff is underground sound so maybe it
| doesn't contaminate everything?
| dankobgd wrote:
| Americans only care about stealing oil and gas
| palmfacehn wrote:
| If you believe they are manufacturing a nuclear weapon, then it
| is less bad than the nuke detonating.
| typeofhuman wrote:
| 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
| pvg wrote:
| 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.
| typeofhuman wrote:
| The post about the stealth bomber doesn't have to be front
| page. I just disagree it should be flagged.
| hearsathought wrote:
| 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?
| jmyeet wrote:
| 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.
| wnevets wrote:
| [flagged]
| codedokode wrote:
| He promised to end a war but instead started another one.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| We will know shortly whether bombing 700 spinning motors that
| we're building death spheres is an act of war...
| jjk166 wrote:
| Well if someone did it to our enrichment plants, it would
| be an act of war.
| neilv wrote:
| 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
| fastball wrote:
| What is surreal about Trump being in the Situation Room?
| neilv wrote:
| As photojournalism, the image is brilliant. Though not
| entirely candid, that subtext contributes.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| You didn't answer the question.
| neilv wrote:
| I'm not going to bother, when already-triggered people
| are downvoting this thread so hard.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| The use of a crisis for a photo-op, for one. He's wearing a
| fucking MAGA hat!
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| seydor wrote:
| 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"
| wvbdmp wrote:
| Ah, but it isn't a war. Just a little operation. It's
| perfectly regular, everone does it, ask anyone.
| seydor wrote:
| 145 airplanes , months of planning, weeks of positioning,
| it's very hard to claim it's not a war
| Ozzie_osman wrote:
| 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.
| I_am_tiberius wrote:
| 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.
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| Doesn't NK already have nukes?
| kelipso wrote:
| More means better deterrence I guess. Didn't China decide
| to build a shitton more to match the US numbers recently?
| I_am_tiberius wrote:
| You're right. Didn't know!
| FergusArgyll wrote:
| This is the kind of high information commenters we have
| on HN when it comes to non CS related issues
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| North Korea has nukes, which has seriously changed the
| calculus in the region. Worse is that they are a vassal state
| of China.
| energy123 wrote:
| 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.
| _heimdall wrote:
| 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.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| 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.
| riffraff wrote:
| 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.
| energy123 wrote:
| 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.
| seydor wrote:
| 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
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| 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.
| thoughtstheseus wrote:
| South Korea looks like they are pursing nukes already.
| dundarious wrote:
| 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.
| Ozzie_osman wrote:
| Thanks. I was missing another negative but I opted to just
| take them all out.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| 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.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| 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.
| kilroy123 wrote:
| 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
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| 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.
| partiallypro wrote:
| 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.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| muzani wrote:
| 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.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| 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.
| FuckButtons wrote:
| 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.
| IceHegel wrote:
| This is obviously correct. Nuclear weapons = sovereignty. UN
| recognition is a piece of paper.
|
| 9 countries exist. So much for self-determination.
| viccis wrote:
| 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.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| viccis wrote:
| That would be fine too. The Soviets stealing our nuclear
| information was the biggest pro-peace act of the 20th
| century.
| khazhoux wrote:
| 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??
| dingaling wrote:
| 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
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| seydor wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised to see an end to non-proliferation
| treaty and large nuclear alliances.
| batmaniam wrote:
| 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.
| wsatb wrote:
| > 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.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| 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.
| erikerikson wrote:
| Sides are a distraction.
|
| Violence and conflict creators and propagators are bad.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| cryptonector wrote:
| > 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.
| ndgold wrote:
| Is it true that all war = illegal ?
| yibg wrote:
| Perhaps, but even if that's true it doesn't mean both sides
| committed an illegal act. Defending against and responding to
| attacks is not illegal.
| nlitened wrote:
| There are literally international legal documents regulating
| wars.
| econ wrote:
| 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.
| mrkeen wrote:
| It's not in governments' interests to allow their citizens
| information without taking the opportunity to spin it first.
| lerp-io wrote:
| 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.
| _heimdall wrote:
| 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.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Disparaging? They literally chant death to America. Is that
| not also calling for its destruction?
| lunarboy wrote:
| 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
| inglor_cz wrote:
| 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.
| maximus-decimus wrote:
| 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.?
| mjburgess wrote:
| > 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.).
| Gareth321 wrote:
| > 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.
| mjburgess wrote:
| > 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.
| Gareth321 wrote:
| > 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?
| mjburgess wrote:
| 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.
| _heimdall wrote:
| 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.
| mjburgess wrote:
| 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"
| _heimdall wrote:
| Its safe to assume a state's public goals _are_ a lie,
| especially during a war.
|
| My point wasn't that their stated goals can be met
| without a ground invasion, it was that a ground invasion
| fought only by Israel will be extremely difficult for
| them to win, if not impossible.
|
| I'm not sure what your point is about death threats, or
| what threats you're referring to. Trump has pretty
| directly threatened Khamenei. The threats I remember
| seeing from Iran are always vague and pointed mostly at a
| desire for the Israeli and US governments to die - though
| dangerous statements to make, I wouldn't consider those
| death threats.
|
| Don't misread me here as defending Iran, both sides in a
| war are to blame and the history of this problem goes
| back decades.
| mjburgess wrote:
| I was referring to the other comment's comments that we
| need to take iranian threats seriously.
|
| However, if israel's goals are a lie -- the question is
| what they're hoping to achieve. Maybe they thought the US
| had the capacity to take out iran's nuclear capability
| and would use it, from the air; or would gamble on that.
| I'm doubtful.
|
| Or they think they can ramp up the escalation ladder to a
| degree where the US is involved in a full-blown war that
| wrecks iran as a functional state. This makes most sense.
|
| The combined defensive capability of western powers may
| be enough to protect israel during such a conflict,
| whilst the US/israel can wage a much more sustained
| offensive campaign.
|
| Either way, going around bombing iran -- civilian areas,
| oil infrastructure, media companies -- has only one aim:
| escalation. They are trying to provoke iran into ever
| more escalatory responses.
|
| One has to square israel's actions with what they could
| plausibly aim to achieve. Everything points towards
| climbing an escalation ladder towards a US-backed
| destruction of iran as a functional state.
|
| This will, of course, cost the US greatly. However
| there's very little evidence israel has any regard for US
| blood or treasure.
| _heimdall wrote:
| 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?
| mjburgess wrote:
| 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.
| Gareth321 wrote:
| * "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.
| mjburgess wrote:
| 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.
| HEmanZ wrote:
| 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".
| mft_ wrote:
| 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.
| azinman2 wrote:
| They is the gov, along with some portion of the
| population.
| _heimdall wrote:
| 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.
| buyucu wrote:
| Can you blame them. CIA overthrew the only democratic
| government they ever had, and replaced it with a dictator.
| netsharc wrote:
| 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
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| _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.
| crubier wrote:
| > 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/D
| estruction_of_Israel_in_Irani...
| KaiserPro wrote:
| 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.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| 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.
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| 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.
| os2warpman wrote:
| >None of this rhetoric means anything until it's put to
| action, which Iran has never done.
|
| Hezbollah.
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| Yeah, but with that it doesn't matter what they say _to
| their own people_.
| _heimdall wrote:
| 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.
| netsharc wrote:
| 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
| _heimdall wrote:
| 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.
| lerp-io wrote:
| 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.
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| 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.
| _heimdall wrote:
| 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.
| buyucu wrote:
| The rhetoric coming from Iran is very mild compared to the
| ulta-religious venom coming from Tel Aviv.
| rocqua wrote:
| 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.
| dartharva wrote:
| 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.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| 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
| tasoeur wrote:
| 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_...
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| 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.
| thenthenthen wrote:
| The Netherlands has US nukes:
| https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vliegbasis_Volkel
|
| Apparently also Belgium , Italy, Turkey, Germany have the
| same type.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| 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)
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| 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 ?
| ActorNightly wrote:
| Why are people surprised when Trump does things illegally?
| fastball wrote:
| Did it surprise you when Obama did the same?
| doofusmcgoo wrote:
| Nope. Because he didn't do anything illegal.
|
| Thanks for calling, goodnight.
| jasonboyd wrote:
| 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.
| kelnos wrote:
| Not to justify what Obama did, but that all fell under
| the post-9/11 "War on Terror" AUMF.
| doofusmcgoo wrote:
| 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.)
| righthand wrote:
| 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.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| fiatpandas wrote:
| 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.
| ergocoder wrote:
| > 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.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| 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.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| 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.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| "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.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| Your thinking would be wrong, then. Making nuclear weapons
| is ridiculously complicated, tedious, and requires access
| to loads of very specific technology.
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| 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 ?
| seydor wrote:
| > 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)
| fastball wrote:
| 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".
| jihadjihad wrote:
| Kinda easy when you can drop a GPS guided bus from 50k feet and
| have no fear of return fire
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| 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.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| lunarboy wrote:
| That Trump's own appointed Head of Intelligence denied? The
| least republicans can do is align their own fucking story.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| t0lo wrote:
| By now, most people trust a nuclear armed stable iran over an
| erratic, war hungry nuclear armed israel
| mandmandam wrote:
| > 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...
| Findecanor wrote:
| 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.
| fastball wrote:
| 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.
| nicce wrote:
| 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.
| apu wrote:
| Incredible to see the bloodlust and warmongering here, cloaked in
| the language of technical interest.
| GuardianCaveman wrote:
| 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.
| viccis wrote:
| >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.
| EvgeniyZh wrote:
| > 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 (surgun),
| basically settler colonialism; earlier Umayyad and Abbasid
| caliphates are among the largest empires in history, and
| their population was mass converted to Islam.
| adhamsalama wrote:
| 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
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| 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.
| timeon wrote:
| > 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.
| Aachen wrote:
| 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?
| khazhoux wrote:
| 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.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.)
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Yes, I guess if all of your neighbors want to kill Jews,
| then having Jews there is quite the threat!
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| 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.
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| 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.
| WastedCucumber wrote:
| 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...
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| 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"
| owebmaster wrote:
| It's good for Iran enemies. The world is not one of Iran's
| enemy
| techpineapple wrote:
| 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?
| buangakun wrote:
| 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.
| blakehawkins wrote:
| False dichotomy final boss
| omeid2 wrote:
| 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.
| nailer wrote:
| The Iranian regime is a the bad side. I'm not sure how you
| would think otherwise. Speak to some Persians.
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| 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_! "
| nailer wrote:
| How do you think destroying a nuclear engagement is similar
| to building a concentration camp?
| soared wrote:
| Both are violent war acts.
| muzani wrote:
| 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.
| petesergeant wrote:
| 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.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >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.
| regularjack wrote:
| I'm more scared of the only country that has ever used
| nuclear weapons than I am of Iran
| tim333 wrote:
| Won't someone please think of the precious nuclear enrichment
| facilities?
| BartjeD wrote:
| Bombing another country is literally a declaration of war. With
| explosions.
|
| Isn't an act of congress required for this, in the US?
| riffraff wrote:
| 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.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Also the enemy is always a guerrilla, terrorist, or a rebel
| and works for a regime, dictator, or king.
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| And then you make movies on how you were the good guys, and
| that's how we all will remember it.
| whilenot-dev wrote:
| 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.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| The US, as rational thinking US citizens may have thought it to
| be, no longer exists.
|
| In fact, it may never have actually existed.
| lotyrin wrote:
| 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.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| By the body of American legislative tradition, no this is not
| an act of war. In fact, we haven't declared one since WWII.
| einpoklum wrote:
| 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.
| Refreeze5224 wrote:
| 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.
| BartjeD wrote:
| 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.
| zorobo wrote:
| I don't recall USA saying death to Mexico
| BartjeD wrote:
| So if we change the example to Canada, responding to
| threats of annexation, you'l engage on the point in
| substance?
| zorobo wrote:
| I didn't know the US envisions throwing Mexicans and
| Canadians to the sea (at best)
| dunekid wrote:
| 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.
| alkonaut wrote:
| 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).
| IceHegel wrote:
| 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.
| GuardianCaveman wrote:
| 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.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria ..._
|
| Interesting. Bombing Muslim-majority countries seems to be
| accepted exception?
| kristjansson wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit.
| ..
| jopsen wrote:
| 2001 seems like a long time ago, is that really the legal
| helmet here?
| rocqua wrote:
| Only a minor difference, but from what I know, those strikes
| were not against government targets?
| khazhoux wrote:
| That ship sailed decades ago, my friend.
| blahyawnblah wrote:
| 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.
| Anduia wrote:
| 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.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| > 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.
| IceHegel wrote:
| 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.
| SG- wrote:
| voting a bozo in gets you bozo outcomes.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| einpoklum wrote:
| > 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.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| sonofhans wrote:
| 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.
| hajile wrote:
| 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).
| techpineapple wrote:
| 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.
| cakealert wrote:
| 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.
| alkyon wrote:
| 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.
| nmca wrote:
| How do you purport to know this?
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| 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)
| hajile wrote:
| 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).
| birn559 wrote:
| Care to elaborate? A random person doubting things doesn't
| help other people or bringing a discussion forward.
| motorest wrote:
| > 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?
| 01100011 wrote:
| 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.
| youngtaff wrote:
| Sooner or later they're going to run oil of oil and gas
| oa335 wrote:
| > 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.
| 01100011 wrote:
| 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.
| fifilura wrote:
| 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.
| whilenot-dev wrote:
| > transported things away
|
| This implies a tunnel system, or was this transport done
| in plain sight?
| yehoshuapw wrote:
| there actually _are_ images of lots of movement there -
| so perhaps plain sight is the right answer.
|
| hopefully I am wrong
| perihelions wrote:
| 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."_
| m000 wrote:
| 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.
| adventured wrote:
| 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.
| 400thecat wrote:
| 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
| tharmas wrote:
| Overthrow and get what? Another Libya?
| adventured wrote:
| 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.
| 400thecat wrote:
| 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
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| 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.
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| 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.
| tguvot wrote:
| israel already bombed those things, with exception of
| prisons
| dreghgh wrote:
| Yes, this was also said about Iraq in 1991.
| adastra22 wrote:
| 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.
| dreghgh wrote:
| 91 also happened in a brief period where Russia was
| holding back from supplying end-of-line military hardware
| to anyone who wanted to take a shot at the United States
| and its clients.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| 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?
| foldr wrote:
| 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.
| samjones33 wrote:
| I agree. Bombing can only "do" so much....
| stickfigure wrote:
| I'm willing to bet that the Americans can build another one
| of those GBU-57 bombs every some months if they had to.
| hackerknew wrote:
| 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.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| 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).
| dotancohen wrote:
| 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.
| dreghgh wrote:
| 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.
| chgs wrote:
| US could ban fuel exports. Unlikely as rich people would
| suffer, but they may be placated with bribes.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| 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.
| adastra22 wrote:
| The US is a net oil exporter.
| spacecadet wrote:
| Great for the wealthy!
| spacecadet wrote:
| Yeah, but good luck! Been trying to convince people of
| this for years...
| Ygg2 wrote:
| 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.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| "Don't worry, we can just engage in a bombing campaign
| against a foreign nation indefinitely."
| KevinCarbonara wrote:
| 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.
| herbst wrote:
| > 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!"
| simonh wrote:
| 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?
| tharmas wrote:
| Israel has nukes, so why would they be afraid of Iran?
| raffraffraff wrote:
| 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.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > 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'?
| raffraffraff wrote:
| 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.
| lostlogin wrote:
| That's one way to justify the deaths I guess. It's all
| Iran's fault.
| djfivyvusn wrote:
| Not only that, they were planning to give them to
| Hezbollah. The brain-dead takes I'm hearing about this
| shitty war amazes me.
| tharmas wrote:
| Only the USA has ever used Nukes.
| deepsun wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Same reason the U.S. and USSR were afraid of each other in
| the Cold War.
| shusaku wrote:
| 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.
| FilosofumRex wrote:
| [flagged]
| 9dev wrote:
| 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.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| 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.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| 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.
| mrkstu wrote:
| You know that isn't true. Israel could withdraw to the
| 1969 borders and Iran would be just as dedicated to
| destroying it.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| 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.
| shusaku wrote:
| > 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
| golol wrote:
| You can oppose something or you can create terorrist
| militias to attack Israel and destabilize its neighboring
| countries.
| FilosofumRex wrote:
| 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...
| dontTREATonme wrote:
| 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.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Do you stop to ask what creates the environment where the
| most extreme views flourish and gain traction?
| dontTREATonme wrote:
| I always marvel at the extreme racism required to so
| thoroughly dehumanize an entire population.
| Ray20 wrote:
| Islamist majority?
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| 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.
| dontTREATonme wrote:
| 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.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| 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.
| dontTREATonme wrote:
| 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.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| I'm honestly not sure if this is satire or why you feel
| the need to tell me what I believe.
|
| > 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.
|
| And I'm not sure why you feel I don't recognise the
| agency of Muslims?
|
| As I said previously please make an argument or explain
| your position and I'll respond to it, but it feels absurd
| to entertain these seemingly baseless ad hominems.
|
| I grew up in a conflict zone and feel that I have some
| understanding of the group dynamics. That's totally
| reasonable and I encourage you to ask yourself if your
| apparent anger and incredulity here is misplaced.
| dontTREATonme wrote:
| You're speaking in innuendo so I'm responding in kind.
| Plainly state your argument, which you haven't done yet,
| instead opting for an odd vaguely veiled bigotry about
| Muslims' ability to make their own choices.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| I'm saying that Western colonial practices and violent
| Zionism created a situation where many people in
| Palestine, and beyond, felt no other choice but to
| support a violent counter campaign. Your turn.
| golol wrote:
| 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.
| orwin wrote:
| 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.
| tdeck wrote:
| This is like complaining that Nat Turner didn't move the
| needle on moving the US toward universal suffrage.
| dontTREATonme wrote:
| 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.
| tdeck wrote:
| When were the Palestinians able to exercise their legally
| affirmed right of return? I must have missed that.
| UltraSane wrote:
| All of that Palestine resistance to Israel has
| accomplished nothing except misery for Palestinians.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| They should just let the second Holocaust happen?
| golol wrote:
| The west bank seems to not be doing so bad compared to
| Gaza.
| UltraSane wrote:
| You should stop lying about a non-existent genocide.
| Israel just wants to live in peace. This is why 20% of
| the Israel population is Arab and 0% of Gaza and the West
| Bank are Jewish.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Just living in peace while stealing the homes and land of
| the locals.
| UltraSane wrote:
| "Just living in peace while stealing the homes and land
| of the locals."
|
| No. Jews migrated to Ottoman controlled land legally and
| paid for it. Palestinians were offered their own country
| but rejected that offer in favor of trying to expel the
| Jews and taking their land. Then they spend the next 70
| years trying and failing to destroy Israel and rejecting
| every offer of their own country.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| The Nakba was a big nothingburger and nothing is going in
| in the west bank right?
|
| This is getting old, do you have any fresh hasbara for
| me?
| UltraSane wrote:
| The Nakba happened when Palestinians foolishly rejected
| the offer from the UN for their own country and decided
| to destroy Israel instead. They failed miserably just
| like they have been failing ever since.
|
| Palestinians need to take responsibility for reacting to
| the formation of Israel in the most self-destructive way
| possible.
| golol wrote:
| 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.
| dismalaf wrote:
| 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.
| dotancohen wrote:
| 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_o
| f_Jerus...
| dismalaf wrote:
| 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...
| dudefeliciano wrote:
| > 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?
| dotancohen wrote:
| 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.
| dudefeliciano wrote:
| >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"?
| dotancohen wrote:
| > Arab culture? Are you telling me an arab jew, muslim,
| christian, druze and aheist have the same culture by
| virtue of being of the same "race"?
|
| Not by virtue of being the same race, but by virtue of
| being the offspring of parents who are proud of their
| heritage and teach their children.
|
| Denying the existence of Arab culture, of which the Arabs
| are (rightly, in my opinion) very proud of, is racism.
| Not everybody has the same values and customs as you do.
| dudefeliciano wrote:
| 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.
| vntok wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Europe
| dudefeliciano wrote:
| "Whilst there are a great number of perspectives that can
| be taken on the subject, it is impossible to form a
| single, all-embracing concept of European culture."
|
| Literally the second sentence in that wiki
| vntok wrote:
| Do you frequently stop reading articles two sentences in?
| It's amazing how much knowledge and intelligence you must
| be missing.
|
| Please do keep reading past. The next sentence (literally
| sentence #3) gives you: _Nonetheless, there are core
| elements which are generally agreed upon as forming the
| cultural foundation of modern Europe. One list of these
| elements given by K. Bochmann includes:_
|
| And then a detailed list of shared-culture-related items.
|
| - A common cultural and spiritual heritage derived from
| Greco-Roman antiquity, Christianity, Judaism, the
| Renaissance, its Humanism, the political thinking of the
| Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and the
| developments of Modernity, including all types of
| socialism;[5][4]
|
| - A rich and dynamic material culture, parts of which
| have been extended to the other continents as the result
| of industrialization and colonialism during the "Great
| Divergence";[5]
|
| - A specific conception of the individual expressed by
| the existence of, and respect for, a legality that
| guarantees human rights and the liberty of the
| individual;[5]
|
| - A plurality of states with different political orders,
| which share new ideas with one another.[5]
|
| - Respect for peoples, states, and nations outside
| Europe.
|
| And then there are 15 categories from Music to Science to
| History, listing cultural similitudes or shared values.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| > 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.
| LtWorf wrote:
| 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.
| dismalaf wrote:
| 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.
| LtWorf wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths
| throw310822 wrote:
| > 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?
| dotancohen wrote:
| > Links to a page that shows the exact opposite
|
| This isn't Reddit. Many people here actually do read
| sources. All the censuses in the decades before the fall
| of the Ottoman empire show a Jewish majority. And for the
| century preceding that, the censuses flipped back and
| forth. > Isn't that exactly what
| happened, i.e. Israel declared half of the land "Jewish
| land" and proceeded to ethnically cleans 800 thousand
| palestinians with whom they had been living side by side
| in the previous decades?
|
| No. The UN designated the malaria-infested marshes
| Israeli (not Jewish) and the majority of the rest Arab
| (not Muslim, not Palestinian, and not Egyptian or
| Jordanian). The Arab states rejected this, and opened a
| war with the newly formed Israel. Many Israeli leaders
| pleaded with the Arab residents not to heed the Arab
| states' calls to evacuate. The situation in Haifa is well
| documented, I know this from living with Arabs in Haifa
| two decades ago. They tell how the Haifa mayor pleaded
| with their families to remain in 1948.
| throw310822 wrote:
| > 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
| dotancohen wrote:
| 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.
|
| Jerusalem was already Jewish majority before 1881. And
| the large waves of the movement were towards the end, not
| towards the beginning.
| throw310822 wrote:
| 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.
| loandbehold wrote:
| 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?
| throw310822 wrote:
| 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?
| UltraSane wrote:
| "their land."
|
| It wasn't "their" land, it was Ottoman land and they let
| Jews migrate there because Jews paid for the land.
| FilosofumRex wrote:
| 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.
| dotancohen wrote:
| > Ashkenazis
|
| A word which literally means "from the Levant", where
| Ashkenaz (Noah's descendent) had settled.
| dotancohen wrote:
| 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?
| UltraSane wrote:
| 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_Musl
| im_...
| FilosofumRex wrote:
| 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."
| fastball wrote:
| "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.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Yup, Palestine is a name for the land, not the people. It
| is a Roman era corruption of Phoenician.
| dismalaf wrote:
| 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).
| adastra22 wrote:
| Interesting, thank you. TIL.
| throw310822 wrote:
| > 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.
| fastball wrote:
| 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.
| sgt wrote:
| 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.
| hajile wrote:
| If a majority agree to rob you, it is no longer robbery?
| motorest wrote:
| 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
| throw310822 wrote:
| That's in the 16th century. Almost no Jews at that time
| either.
| motorest wrote:
| > 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.
| throw310822 wrote:
| > 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.
| dotancohen wrote:
| 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/Demogr
| aphic_history_of_Jerusalem
| woodpanel wrote:
| Exactly. Ill intended actors (Soviets, competing European
| interests, Islamists etc.) even propped up the propaganda
| fiction about the "evil" Crusaders, while in fact the
| Crusaders fought against colonization.
|
| The entire north of Africa, as well as the Levante and
| Asia Minor was still 80-90% Christian when Crusaders
| came.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| > Also let's not forget that the partition plan for
| Palestine was proposed by the UN
|
| Who proposed the Balfour Declaration 30 years prior?
| iamacyborg wrote:
| > 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.
| fortran77 wrote:
| A complete inversion of history. What an insane take!
| edanm wrote:
| > 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.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| 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.
| bambax wrote:
| 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.)
| ivell wrote:
| 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?
| quietbritishjim wrote:
| 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.
| samaltmanfried wrote:
| 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.
| kikimora wrote:
| 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.
| bambax wrote:
| > _Britain donated land to Jews_
|
| Land it didn't own. Most people can be very generous with
| what they don't have.
| kikimora wrote:
| Agree, but my point is in the question how to untangle
| the mess we have today.
| LtWorf wrote:
| If you start from made up premises, the conclusion is
| also made up.
|
| Try to read a non fantasy sionist history book...
| kikimora wrote:
| There is no conclusion on my part. There is an ask for
| reasonable ideas how to untangle the mess between jews
| and palestinians.
| LtWorf wrote:
| If you start from made up premises, you will not be able
| to judge "reasonable ideas".
| kikimora wrote:
| 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?
| chgs wrote:
| You are arguing in favour of the land allocations in
| 1948?
| kikimora wrote:
| I'm asking for realistic ideas how to deal jews and
| palestinians occupying same land, hating each other and
| having no where to go from that land.
| ivell wrote:
| 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.
| dlahoda wrote:
| 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?
| dartharva wrote:
| 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.
| asadm wrote:
| ... so you preemptively attack every neighbor and commit
| genocide?
| lostmsu wrote:
| Was this bombing a genocide?
| kennywinker wrote:
| 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.
| jhanschoo wrote:
| 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.
| throw310822 wrote:
| 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.
| nine_k wrote:
| 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)
| dttze wrote:
| 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?
| nine_k wrote:
| 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.
| HK-NC wrote:
| Well I'd argue 50% of the population got a raw deal in
| the revolution at least.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| 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.
| LtWorf wrote:
| Do you have sources for all of this fantasy spin on
| history?
| inglor_cz wrote:
| 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.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > 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
| nine_k wrote:
| 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.)
| throw310822 wrote:
| > 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?
| foxglacier wrote:
| 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.
| Krasnol wrote:
| 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.
| tdeck wrote:
| > ? 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.
| qwery wrote:
| 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.
| praptak wrote:
| Shah was a dictator propped up by US. There's no going
| back to these times.
| CalChris wrote:
| Installed. We overthrew Mossadegh. We overthrew a
| democracy.
| nine_k wrote:
| Indeed, it was a shameful act.
| energy123 wrote:
| 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.
| throw310822 wrote:
| 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.
| ivell wrote:
| > 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.
| LtWorf wrote:
| 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?
| simonh wrote:
| 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.
| compsciphd wrote:
| 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.
| 8note wrote:
| 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
| petre wrote:
| Sure, they're making weapons grade uranium to exhibit it in
| the Museum of the Islamic Revolution and the Holy Defense
| in Teheran.
| k7sune wrote:
| 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
| compiler_queen wrote:
| > 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.
| kanbara wrote:
| 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.
| compiler_queen wrote:
| 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.
| elcritch wrote:
| 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.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| > 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?
| loandbehold wrote:
| 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_Iran
| i...
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| 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.
| loandbehold wrote:
| 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...
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| 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.
| Ray20 wrote:
| >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."
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| 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?
| simonh wrote:
| You're looking for this.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Ir
| ani...
|
| >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.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| 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?
| simonh wrote:
| 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.
| 8note wrote:
| 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
| nec4b wrote:
| Are you proposing moving Israel to another location?
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| No.
| McAlpine5892 wrote:
| > 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.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Israel is the only democratic country in the Middle East.
| Support for Israel extends beyond religious justifications.
| fluorinerocket wrote:
| I could really care less what theit form of government is
| petre wrote:
| > 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.
| dreghgh wrote:
| > 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.
| Avshalom wrote:
| 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
| petre wrote:
| 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...
| reillyse wrote:
| A shining beacon of democracy.
| CalChris wrote:
| Iran was democratic ... until we overthrew them.
| hopelite wrote:
| We, the British or the Americans, or those who control
| both?
| throwaway7839 wrote:
| 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.
| adastra22 wrote:
| The 18% of Israeli citizens that are Muslim are 100%
| equal to their Jewish brethren under the law. There is no
| tiered citizenship.
| chgs wrote:
| https://www.timesofisrael.com/supreme-court-rejects-
| israeli-...
|
| Looks theocratic to me
| adastra22 wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway97894 wrote:
| 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.
| adastra22 wrote:
| I think you are dishonestly interpreting it, but I'm not
| going to engage with a throwaway account.
| packetlost wrote:
| > 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.
| throwaway97894 wrote:
| 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?
| samjones33 wrote:
| - 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.
| wun0ne wrote:
| 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?
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| Iran used to be a democracy in the Middle East until the
| US got involved
| McAlpine5892 wrote:
| 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...
| hopelite wrote:
| 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
| oliwarner wrote:
| 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.
| eptcyka wrote:
| I wonder if the _negotiate fairly_ option is viable after
| countless generations have been bombed.
| oliwarner wrote:
| We either try, or resign to slowly killing each other
| until one does figure out how to wipe the other out
| forever.
|
| Forced separation only deepens the hatred.
| simonh wrote:
| 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.
| LtWorf wrote:
| Israel has elections. So does Russia. Is Russia a
| democracy?
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Bad hasbara.
| dreghgh wrote:
| 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.
| samjones33 wrote:
| 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.
| compiler_queen wrote:
| > 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.
| lokimedes wrote:
| Those with the spirit to strike, will always dominate those
| with a mind to moderate.
| KnightSaysNi wrote:
| > 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"
| imperfect_blue wrote:
| >> 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?
| oa335 wrote:
| > 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
| samjones33 wrote:
| That is two random youtubers.
|
| You know better than to listen to rants on line... I
| hope!
| oa335 wrote:
| 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...
| samjones33 wrote:
| 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?
| oa335 wrote:
| > 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.
| LtWorf wrote:
| > Israel has never actually wanted to end the lives of
| every Palestinian
|
| Uh? So can you explain the genocide?
| samjones33 wrote:
| 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)
| LtWorf wrote:
| Inventing is explaining now? Ah...
| samjones33 wrote:
| 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.
| mhb wrote:
| It's pretty definitively explained by an appeal to any
| dictionary. Like, literally.
| GlacierFox wrote:
| _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.
| ngcazz wrote:
| 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.
| bambax wrote:
| > _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.
| Alex_L_Wood wrote:
| Ah, yes, Israel famously publicly declaring that its' holy
| mission is to destroy Iran. Happened so many times, yes.
| Krasnol wrote:
| 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...
| simonh wrote:
| 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.
| Krasnol wrote:
| 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.
| simonh wrote:
| 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.
| powerapple wrote:
| What's the reason of incompatibility of Islam and Jewish
| religion?
| elcritch wrote:
| 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.
| mykowebhn wrote:
| > 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
| _tik_ wrote:
| Then how is that any different from what the USA has done.
| Bombing and destroying many countries in the name of
| spreading democracy?
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| 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.
| yard2010 wrote:
| Iran is more like a server state, it serves terror and death
| through their proxies. It's like a vpn of destruction.
| dudefeliciano wrote:
| then what is the US pray tell? The cloudflare of killing?
| 20after4 wrote:
| That's a fairly apt comparison actually.
| tough wrote:
| meh, more like the AWS
| choonway wrote:
| NK is more of a russian client state, not chinese.
| seydor wrote:
| > by having a theocracy they
|
| Religion is just another ideology, and it s not like Islam has
| a specific position about nuclear energy
| ebb_earl_co wrote:
| 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.
| hajile wrote:
| 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.
| recroad wrote:
| Thank you, great liberator. Please bomb us more to save our
| lives.
| hackerknew wrote:
| 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.
| recroad wrote:
| 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.
| gattilorenz wrote:
| 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
| hackerknew wrote:
| Not on their heads. On the weapons and heads of the
| regime. The regime is not the Iranian people.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| 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.
| fastball wrote:
| 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.
| autobodie wrote:
| Such bombs would necessarily need to fall in American
| cities, so the scenario you describe is not possible.
| fastball wrote:
| Which part is impossible?
| simgt wrote:
| 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.
| Ray20 wrote:
| >People never, ever, under any circumstances, want to be
| attacked and bombed by another country.
|
| Depends on the effectiveness of the bombing.
| hackerknew wrote:
| 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.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| 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.
| vasco wrote:
| How many Iranians do you know that told you that?
| adastra22 wrote:
| Literally every Iranian I know, which is quite a few. The
| regime is NOT liked.
| vasco wrote:
| Waiting for this (to be bombed out if existence) and
| "don't like the regime" are very different things.
| throwaway97894 wrote:
| Indeed, judging by the No King protests, some strong
| action is in order if we follow this pathetic way of
| thinking.
| hajile wrote:
| 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.
| hn_throw2025 wrote:
| https://news.sky.com/story/iraniansstandwithisrael-iran-
| bans...
| vasco wrote:
| Do you know those people in the article and if they are
| Iranian?
| dimator wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway447573 wrote:
| I don't see Hitler and Mussolini's grandsons ruling
| Germany and Italy.
| nomat wrote:
| 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?
| spacecadet wrote:
| Are they not there DOGE-ing as we speak?! lol.
| portaouflop wrote:
| Anecdotally Mussolini's granddaughter has been a member
| of both houses of the Italian Parliament as well as the
| European Parliament.
| icepush wrote:
| Believe it or not, Mussolini's granddaughter is a fairly
| influential former politician within Italy
| UncleMeat wrote:
| 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.
| dlahoda wrote:
| yugoslavia?
| xoac wrote:
| 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.
| deepsun wrote:
| 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.
| brabel wrote:
| 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.
| tazjin wrote:
| 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.
| spacecadet wrote:
| Tech is MIC.
| FpUser wrote:
| 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.
| mullingitover wrote:
| 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.
| spacecadet wrote:
| 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...
| Kye wrote:
| 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.
| jokowueu wrote:
| Iraq flash backs , they were sure very happy to greet their
| liberators , it's amazing to see propaganda's effects
| working in action
| Hikikomori wrote:
| US didn't like it the last time the Iranian people got
| their regime change.
| chgs wrote:
| [flagged]
| fifilura wrote:
| 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.
| hackerknew wrote:
| 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.
| InsideOutSanta wrote:
| 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.
| stuckkeys wrote:
| 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.
| vFunct wrote:
| 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.
| bobxmax wrote:
| 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.
| breppp wrote:
| 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
| bobxmax wrote:
| 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?
| breppp wrote:
| 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
| bobxmax wrote:
| 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.
| dreghgh wrote:
| 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.
| hackerknew wrote:
| 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.
| anticodon wrote:
| > 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.
| hashstring wrote:
| 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.
| Gareth321 wrote:
| 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.
| recroad wrote:
| Are you seriously suggesting that Israel doesn't target
| civilians? Are you following the events of the last 2
| years?
| Gareth321 wrote:
| Re-read my comment please because it appears you did not.
| recroad wrote:
| 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).
| epolanski wrote:
| > 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.
| davedx wrote:
| Don't forget Ukraine - gave up their nukes and look what
| happened
| lIl-IIIl wrote:
| They never really had them. They were in Ukraine but Moscow
| had control.
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| And Ukraine built them.
| renerick wrote:
| 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...
| varispeed wrote:
| 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.
| franktankbank wrote:
| 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...
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| > Is this real?
|
| You can see the link in GP comment by yourself.
| nine_k wrote:
| The rockets, not the nukes (warheads).
| cromka wrote:
| Then why would they need a full Budapest memorandum with
| co-signees if Moscow could just take them back?
|
| This sounds ridiculous.
| dlahoda wrote:
| because rockets to be transported to russkies back. if
| they would not sign, some bad things could happened along
| the way.
| varjag wrote:
| It was indeed because there was no legal foundation for
| Russian ownership of all Soviet nuclear assets, no matter
| how every other nuclear power wanted it at the time.
| epolanski wrote:
| By the way a "memorandum" is a document that forms no
| legal foundation at all.
| varjag wrote:
| 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.
| epolanski wrote:
| 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.
| varispeed wrote:
| 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.
| krzyk wrote:
| Don't forget, but keeping nukes in Ukraine, would mean
| that Russia would get less of them.
| cmcaleer wrote:
| It wasn't really particularly material whether Russia had
| 30,000 nukes or 32,000 nukes in 1994. It was material if
| other states got the components that were in those 2,000
| nukes.
| varjag wrote:
| 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.
| epolanski wrote:
| > 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/sla
| te....
|
| https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/ukraine-
| illuminated...
| varjag wrote:
| 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.
| Braxton1980 wrote:
| 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?
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| > 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.
| libertine wrote:
| 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
| walterlw wrote:
| 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.
| averageRoyalty wrote:
| 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?
| lazide wrote:
| The US has every incentive to turn Ukraine into Russia's
| Vietnam.
| walterlw wrote:
| 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.
| averageRoyalty wrote:
| 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?
| FpUser wrote:
| >"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.
| b33j0r wrote:
| 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.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| Not theirs and you conveniently omit everything what
| happened in between, including the giant amounts of money
| directly and indirectly poured into it.
| o_m wrote:
| 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.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| _sigh_
|
| Please, take a 15 minutes to educate yourself:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Armed_Forces#Structu
| re_...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Rocket_Forces
| severino wrote:
| _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.
| margorczynski wrote:
| > 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.
| dlahoda wrote:
| israel is way smaller and easier to bomb.
|
| why would not iran gov sacrifice few million of its people
| to kill whole israel?
| spwa4 wrote:
| 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.
| anonnon wrote:
| > 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.
| HPsquared wrote:
| 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.
| ALLTaken wrote:
| 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
| libertine wrote:
| 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
| ALLTaken wrote:
| 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.
| libertine wrote:
| > 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?
| inglor_cz wrote:
| 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.
| rusk wrote:
| > 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.
| tech2 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| No, nobody is ever forgetting that. It gets shoved into
| everyone's faces at EVERY opportunity. This is strange,
| because when it comes to moral failings, oil profits and
| corruption aren't on any serious person's radar.
|
| Because what does get forgotten is that socialists
| worldwide strongly supported the revolution, from Moscow
| to Brazil, Berlin to New York, including supporting
| khomeini. With the UK's campaign "khomeini doesn't seek
| power, just wants to free Iran" message (spread by the
| BBC), and France's asylum and help. Protest marches in
| support of what turned out to be murderous islamists in
| every capital.
|
| As for tactics: Khomeini (let's be honest here: it was
| Khomeini) organized snipers to shoot into the security
| services during a protest, provoking a battle where 89
| people died ... at which point Khomeini declared that
| "4,000 innocent protesters were massacred by Zionists".
|
| The protestors, whipped up by leftists did not take
| khomeini at his word, organized a general country-wide
| strike ... Khomeini organized further attacks on both his
| allies and the government, each time blaming zionists,
| never losing socialist support ... and 2 years later, now
| in power, Khomeini organized a massacre to "purify"
| Iranian society of his socialist allies, at least 3800
| brutally executed, including high school students, one at
| most 7 years old. He has kept killing, and khamenei has
| continued the killings, some years 300, in the last
| decade more like 1000 every year.
|
| Famously khamenei declared that "executing minors is
| illegal, if they're virgins". By which he meant that
| female prisoners are to be raped multiple times before
| execution. [1]
|
| But I guess that's better than vague oil corruption and
| evil western influence, isn't it? Never mind that of
| course the revolution has totally failed Iran. They did
| not bring jobs, did not bring housing, did not ... in the
| 50 years they have in power.
|
| Needless to say, more people died in Khomeini's
| purification than in every other part of the revolution
| combined. Hell, more people died in the last 5 years of
| "islamic" peace, than died in the 5 years of the
| revolution.
|
| [1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/12/iran-
| security...
| tech2 wrote:
| Maybe we're missing one another here but it appears
| you're arguing for me. Khomeini is in place _because_ of
| western influence/involvement, if it weren't for
| operation Ajax/Boot (depending on whether we're talking
| CIA or MI-6 naming) and the various aspects of the
| associated propaganda then Mosaddegh may have remained in
| power (I say maybe because it was quite unstable times in
| the early 50s Iran) and Khomeini may never have gained
| power.
| FrozenSynapse wrote:
| > it would mean mutual destruction.
|
| some religious lunatics would deem that worthy
| dlahoda wrote:
| it will not be mutual. look at map and size of countries.
|
| so it even no need to be lunatic to act some nukes.
| m000 wrote:
| > some religious lunatics would deem that worthy
|
| That would be primarily Evangelical Zionists, seeking to
| hasten the end of days.
| samjones33 wrote:
| Evangelical Zionists who fund extremist Jews ...
|
| Film, Til Kingdom Come --
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Til_Kingdom_Come_(film)
| dlahoda wrote:
| 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.
| margorczynski wrote:
| 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.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Indeed, the only place I see that line being blurred
| today is in the US.
| rusk wrote:
| > gov of iran says israel is little satan
|
| A pretty popular opinion these days
| breppp wrote:
| only means that their long game plan of sacrificing the
| palestinians for a chance at some regional/international
| influence is working
| ta1243 wrote:
| With Israel playing right into it
| breppp wrote:
| probably the same could be said about iran now
| GlacierFox wrote:
| Yeah it's surreal. Imagine if a terrorist group hopped
| the border into the USA and gleefully massacred a couple
| thousand people and then took loads of hostages into one
| of the most densely packed, boobie trapped ,
| fundamentalist hell holes on the planet while being
| protected by the death-cult populace.
|
| That place would be leveled and you wouldn't hear a peep
| of opposition.
| bavell wrote:
| Nope, we would have sent in strike teams, special ops,
| etc to get the hostages out BEFORE leveling the place.
| Anything different would face massive opposition and
| carry a political death sentence for whoever gave the
| order.
| GlacierFox wrote:
| Oh strike teams? Like the ones they sent in to Palestine?
| The ones that found it impossible to get anyone back due
| to the density of depraved traps around every corner and
| every tunnel while dealing with a populace that literally
| wants to wipe you and cut your head off at the first
| chance?
|
| "Anything different would face massive opposition and
| carry a political death sentence for whoever gave the
| order."
|
| That's your personal opinion.
| ben_w wrote:
| > That place would be leveled and you wouldn't hear a
| peep of opposition.
|
| You wouldn't hear any opposition from inside the USA.
|
| At the same time, the USA levelling the place would
| create a lot of opposition basically everywhere else.
|
| The UK government trying to toe the line with the USA
| about invading Iraq in the name of the GWOT was met with
| 10-16% of the UK population marching in protest against
| UK involvement:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-
| war_prot...
|
| This is something I bring up whenever anyone can't
| understand why Israel's response to Hamas' attack _nearly
| two years ago now_ is likely even stronger than the USA
| 's to 9/11 -- even at best it would take a decade for the
| rage to dissipate, and the Israeli people are unlikely to
| care about the opinions of people like me for the same
| reason the Americans didn't.
| GlacierFox wrote:
| I'm British, you wouldn't hear a peep from me. I'm not
| Jewish either.
|
| I think you're incorrect about the opposition. You get
| the loud mouth left that for some reason have aligned
| themselves to a terrorist organisation. But if you go
| down the pub and speak to real people here in the UK,
| it's the complete opposite. It's reflected in the most
| recent polling where the vast majority of the country
| voted for what could be described as the most right-wing
| party seriously operating in the UK today.
|
| People are really getting fed up of Islamic nonsense
| leaking into our completely incompatible society.
| samjones33 wrote:
| >Israel's response to Hamas' attack nearly two years ago
| now is likely even stronger than the USA's to 9/11
|
| I dunno about that. Iraq suffered between a quarter
| million and a million dead (depending on how you count).
| The % of those who touched a gun is low, under %10. The
| vast majority are civilians.
|
| There wasn't a focused effort to bring in food, water or
| electricity to Iraq. A key difference is that Iraqis
| could leave, and hundreds of thousands did (to Syria,
| Jordan and other countries).
|
| Israel's war in Gaza, messy and horrible as it is, is far
| (very far) more focused on Hamas than America's wars were
| in Iraq and Afghanistan.
| ben_w wrote:
| I should have phrased it differently, I meant the
| _psychological_ response, not the military response.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| I was alive during 9/11 and this is more or less what we
| did, albeit in a more distant set of countries. I don't
| think we came out of the experience better off.
| GlacierFox wrote:
| "albeit in a more distant set of countries"
|
| You've said that like it's of no significance.
| epolanski wrote:
| Few problems with your statement are:
|
| 1) Israeli government willingly favored Hamas governing
| the Gaza strip and completely cut off the Palestinian
| authority
|
| 2) Israeli government ignored their own intelligence and
| even allowed money and weapons transfer from Qatar to
| Hamas
|
| 3) Israeli intelligence knew October 7 was gonna happen
| and did little to prevent it
|
| 4) While October 7 is one of the most despicable acts of
| crime and terror ever happened, it has not happened in a
| vacuum. It has happened by people who are literally
| living in the hell and open prison the Israelis have
| created for them
| GlacierFox wrote:
| You have raised some interesting points that I will read
| about and try to make sense of.
| tguvot wrote:
| points are bad
|
| hamas came to power in 2006 after usa forced election
| (against will of PA that was afraid that hamas will win).
| after this usa was horrified by outcome and
| trained/sponsored PA to take over gaza and depose hamas.
| PA failed and it forces were shot/thrown from
| roofs/dragged behind bikes and supporters tortured into
| obedience.
|
| as outcome PA ceased paying salaries to it employees in
| gaza and foot the bill for infrastructure/etc.
|
| there was massive outrage in media that "hundreds of
| thousands of people in gaza will starve now because they
| have no money to buy food" that forced Israel to allow
| money transfers from Qatar
| samjones33 wrote:
| >3) Israeli intelligence knew October 7 was gonna happen
| and did little to prevent it
|
| This is not considered valid in Israel.
|
| In Israel October 7 is considered a massive failure of
| intelligence. No one in the top 30 of any Israeli
| intelligence agency that Oct 7 was going to happen.
| elcritch wrote:
| > 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.
| roenxi wrote:
| > 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.
| spwa4 wrote:
| "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
| roenxi wrote:
| 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.
| sfn42 wrote:
| 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.
| mafuy wrote:
| 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.
| breppp wrote:
| 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...
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| 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.
| globalnode wrote:
| downvoted because truth hurts? lol, tough crowd here my
| friend.
| handfuloflight wrote:
| Cain has truly killed Abel.
| gitremote wrote:
| > 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_Netanya
| hu
| rcpt wrote:
| You're absolutely correct on this but because of the
| point you're making they've downvoted you into the grey
| nl wrote:
| > 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.
| gitremote wrote:
| 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.
| jraby3 wrote:
| 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.
| gitremote wrote:
| Source?
|
| From Encyclopaedia Britannica:
|
| "The PA was founded following years of hostility. Secret
| meetings held in Norway in 1993 between the PLO and
| Israel led to the signing of the historic Declaration of
| Principles (the Oslo Accords), in which the two sides
| agreed to mutual recognition and terms whereby governing
| functions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip--occupied
| by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967--would be
| progressively handed over to a Palestinian council."
|
| https://www.britannica.com/topic/Palestinian-Authority
|
| PA is controlled by Fatah, which is "centre-left" to
| "left-wing" per Wikipedia. If you disagree, edit
| Wikipedia and cite your sources.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah
| ivape wrote:
| 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.)
| scotty79 wrote:
| > 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_W
| ar
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
|
| If everybody hates you anyways you eventually morph into
| the thing that deserves that hatred.
| belter wrote:
| > 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" - Donald J. Trump -
| June 2017
|
| "Qatar has been a key financial supporter of the
| Palestinian militant organization Hamas, transferring
| more than $1.8 billion to Hamas over the years..."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari_support_for_Hamas
| ta1243 wrote:
| 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.
| ben_w wrote:
| 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").
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| 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.
| elcritch wrote:
| 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.
| ivape wrote:
| 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?
| Ntrails wrote:
| > 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.
| ivape wrote:
| 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...
| elcritch wrote:
| > 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.
| more-nitor wrote:
| > 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)
| ivape wrote:
| 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
| elcritch wrote:
| > 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.
| ivape wrote:
| 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.
| scotty79 wrote:
| > 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.
| krzyk wrote:
| > 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.
| handfuloflight wrote:
| > 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.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| 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.
| looofooo0 wrote:
| Forget Ryssian involvment in Syria and Libiya!
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| 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.
| scotty79 wrote:
| > 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.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| > 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).
| scotty79 wrote:
| > 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.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| > 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.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| > 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.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| 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.
| _old_dude_ wrote:
| > 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...
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| The old mantra of bombing for peace and having sex for
| virginity, no?
| fortran77 wrote:
| 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.
| echoangle wrote:
| > 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.
| handfuloflight wrote:
| By the moral law of not being a hypocrite, for one.
| epolanski wrote:
| 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.
| rajup wrote:
| > 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.
| mu53 wrote:
| 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
| scotty79 wrote:
| > 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.
| dekelpilli wrote:
| 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.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| 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.
| ashoeafoot wrote:
| They would use some proxxy and shroud the nuke in ambiguity
| . They have driven 45 years of proxxy war against israel
| and had it comingbso long its 1.5 generations family
| buisness now
| solumunus wrote:
| Silly! Such flippant language. Yes, it would be silly.
| Jihadists do "silly" things all the time. Their goals are
| "silly".
| jeswin wrote:
| > 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.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| 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.)
| samjones33 wrote:
| >(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.
| dreghgh wrote:
| 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".
| samjones33 wrote:
| 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.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| 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.
| samjones33 wrote:
| 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.
| 8note wrote:
| 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.
| nine_k wrote:
| 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.
| contrarian1234 wrote:
| 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)
| lonelyasacloud wrote:
| > 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; h
| ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_de..
| .
| compsciphd wrote:
| why do you view nukes as the ultimate deterrent? Israel has
| nukes and it gets attacked. This proves the above is a
| logical fallacy.
| moltude wrote:
| Add Ukraine to that list.
| perihelions wrote:
| > _" 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).
| southernplaces7 wrote:
| >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.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| Ukraine is another example from a different area
| scotty79 wrote:
| > 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.
| ashoeafoot wrote:
| 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.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| > 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.
| ben_w wrote:
| > 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?
| amelius wrote:
| I have a question: why did China allow NK to develop nukes?
| dummydummy1234 wrote:
| 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.
| quonn wrote:
| > 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).
| mdorazio wrote:
| Ukraine would like to have a word with you.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| 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.
| somenameforme wrote:
| 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.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| 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.
| somenameforme wrote:
| 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...
| mattmaroon wrote:
| 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.
| gcanyon wrote:
| > 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?
| gcanyon wrote:
| 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.
| slv77 wrote:
| 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.
| b33j0r wrote:
| 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.
| tome wrote:
| > 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.
| FilosofumRex wrote:
| 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.
| 9dev wrote:
| Maybe the fact that every single one of these representatives
| has been appointed in a fair democratic vote?
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Iran became a theocracy through a popular uprising, too.
| Democracy and theocracy are quite compatible, as long as
| the people are religious enough.
| 9dev wrote:
| 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.
| rf15 wrote:
| m8 they literally swear on the bible
|
| /s
| otikik wrote:
| You... don't see it?
| tsimionescu wrote:
| 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.
| 9dev wrote:
| > 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_referen
| ces_to_G...
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > 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.
| motorest wrote:
| > 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?
| brabel wrote:
| 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.
| motorest wrote:
| > 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.
| lenkite wrote:
| 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.
| 9dev wrote:
| 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.
| lenkite wrote:
| > 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.
| 9dev wrote:
| 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.
| lenkite wrote:
| 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.
| mopsi wrote:
| > 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.
|
| We can discuss potential successors to Xi right here on
| HN, and an outsider might say that "a forum frequented by
| Silicon Valley billionaires is picking the next leader of
| China". But that would be a huge misrepresentation of us
| and our influence.
|
| The fixation of Russian trolls on that single phone call
| reeks of desperation. During election season, I'd expect
| hundreds of such calls to be happening at any given
| moment between various officials, strategists,
| financiers, candidates, analysts, and many other people.
| stavros wrote:
| 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"?
| lenkite wrote:
| 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.
| stavros wrote:
| I don't care what Americans do, but I'd quite like to
| storm our parliament and kick out the current government.
| motorest wrote:
| > 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?
| tguvot wrote:
| 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
| spacecadet wrote:
| I agree with you.
| m000 wrote:
| > 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.
| stavros wrote:
| Yeah I disagree that Americans should wait it out.
| m000 wrote:
| Fair enough :)
| tsimionescu wrote:
| 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.
| stavros wrote:
| 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?
| Narretz wrote:
| 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?
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "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.
| lenkite wrote:
| 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...
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "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.
| lenkite wrote:
| 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 ?
| mopsi wrote:
| The fact that someone won elections doesn't mean they get
| to stay until the end of their term no matter what they
| do.
|
| Yanukovych had over 100 people killed in a violent
| crackdown on protests, then fled to Russia as he was
| about to be imprisoned. On 21 February 2014, the
| Ukrainian parliament voted 328-0 to hold snap elections
| to replace Yanukovych before the end of his term. Not a
| single member of his own party supported him or voted
| against the decision. He was replaced through general
| elections held a few months later. This is exactly how
| parliamentary democracy is supposed to work.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_election
| lenkite wrote:
| Sure, by that time the coup was successful. Anyone in
| Kyiv who objected to it would face arrest and
| incarceration themselves.
|
| The vote did not follow formal impeachment procedure
| under Article 111 of the Ukrainian Constitution (which
| requires a Constitutional Court review and more formal
| steps).
|
| I am sure you then have no objections to the 53-0 vote in
| Crimea to remove the then-Ukrainian-appointed prime
| minister Anatoly Mogilev and install Sergei Aksyonov and
| the subsequent referendum on autonomy. After all, this is
| "exactly how parliamentary democracy is supposed to
| work".
| mopsi wrote:
| The vote by the parliament did follow formal procedures:
| not those of an impeachment, because the president was
| not impeached, but those of snap elections, as the
| parliament chose to replace the government through
| elections. In terms of legitimacy, general elections
| trump over everything else. A coup is commonly defined as
| an illegitimate seizure of power by a small group.
| General elections are the polar opposite, the furthest
| thing from a coup.
|
| Regarding the Crimean referendum, I do have objections:
| international law considers referendums held under
| foreign military occupation illegitimate, and rightfully
| so. Had Hitler staged a referendum in occupied Paris
| after the invasion, would that have meant that the French
| willingly joined the Third Reich?
|
| The Crimean referendum is nothing new. In the 1940s, the
| USSR also staged a series of votes to legitimize their
| invasions of European nations. At this point, I would
| consider anyone expecting me to take these referendums
| seriously as either severely underinformed or simply
| maliciously trolling.
| motorest wrote:
| > 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.
| lawn wrote:
| How nice of you to insert some Russian bullshit narrative
| into the discussion.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| 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.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| 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).
| motorest wrote:
| > 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".
| baxtr wrote:
| 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.
| hiddencost wrote:
| Liar
| 9dev wrote:
| Enlighten me, which part of my comment was a lie?
| ngcazz wrote:
| 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
| samjones33 wrote:
| 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.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| Is it a fair democratic vote when a very substantial number
| of the people that Israel claims are residents cannot
| participate in this vote?
| motorest wrote:
| > 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
| hiddencost wrote:
| Absurd.
| CalChris wrote:
| The Basic Law (their Constitution) of Israel defines it as
| a Jewish state. Its first page says: The
| Land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish
| People, in which the State of Israel was established.
| (b) The State of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish
| People in which it realizes its natural, cultural,
| religious and historical right to self-determination.
| (c) The realization of the right to national self-
| determination in the State of Israel is exclusive to the
| Jewish People.
|
| Not irrespective of religion, _exclusive to the Jewish
| People_.
| spwa4 wrote:
| If you have a problem with laws defining this sort of
| thing, you're going to have problems with the
| constitution of any muslim-majority country. Including
| ... of course Palestine.
|
| Hamas/Gaza:
|
| "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems
| fight Jews and kill them. Then the Jews will hide behind
| rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: O'
| Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill
| him,"
|
| And the west bank's government pays pensions according to
| how many Jews you hurt:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Marty
| rs_...
|
| (No worries the "parliamentary democracy" that the WB is
| - hah! - promises to stop that now. Well, except for the
| payments)
|
| But this is a general problem with all muslim-majority
| nations. Take an extremely moderate one - Morocco -
| defines itself as:
|
| "A sovereign Muslim State, attached to its national unity
| and to its territorial integrity, the Kingdom of Morocco
| intends to preserve,"
| ngcazz wrote:
| Even if you take those statements at face value, Israel
| is the only apartheid country being discussed here.
| samjones33 wrote:
| Have you paid attention to who can hold power in, say,
| Iran? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Syria? Or Jordan?
|
| Israel isn't any more apartheid than any of those places.
| Given that Israeli Arabs can and do vote (and become
| Medical Doctors), Israel is a heck of a lot _less_
| apartheid than those places.
|
| Consider travel... it can help you get outside the
| "american" box.
| spwa4 wrote:
| You do realize that socialists are people who kept
| supporting khomeini AFTER it became clear he sent
| snipers, during the revolution, to attack his own people
| (well, the students, unions, ...) just so he could claim
| "zionists" killed thousands of people?
|
| Of course this government is FAR worse, including on
| racism, than the worst Israel has ever been accused of.
| It's not going to change their minds ...
|
| The current Iranian government started blaming Israel for
| everything long before they were even in power.
| Socialists supported them back then ... and largely now.
|
| Clearly, one is forced to conclude, they see no problem
| with such actions.
| samjones33 wrote:
| 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....)
| tdeck wrote:
| 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
| gadilif wrote:
| 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.
| djfivyvusn wrote:
| 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.
| CactusRocket wrote:
| > 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.
| amenhotep wrote:
| 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.
| vixen99 wrote:
| 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.
| dekelpilli wrote:
| It would quite concerning if Israel had non-Zionist (read:
| not in favour of the existence of Israel) parties.
| dreghgh wrote:
| > 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.
| Gud wrote:
| 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.
| dreghgh wrote:
| 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.
| reissbaker wrote:
| 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.
| dreghgh wrote:
| 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.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| 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.
| dreghgh wrote:
| Just because you didn't know something until 24 hours ago
| does not make it a myth.
| kevinventullo wrote:
| 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.
| reissbaker wrote:
| 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...
| netsharc wrote:
| 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
| diggan wrote:
| > 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| nivertech wrote:
| 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
| rxtexit wrote:
| 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.
| vixen99 wrote:
| 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.
| dandanua wrote:
| "In God we trust"
| adastra22 wrote:
| A cheap shot ignorant of the history and context of that
| phrase.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > 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.
| dlahoda wrote:
| 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.
| belter wrote:
| > 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...
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| or, you know, they just want power generators, like they
| claimed for decades now and all the UN auditors confirmed every
| time?
| ngcazz wrote:
| 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.
| mcv wrote:
| 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.
| ngcazz wrote:
| 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
| mcv wrote:
| 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.
| elif wrote:
| 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.
| 15155 wrote:
| > All the intelligence says they weren't building nukes
|
| > IAEA inspectors
|
| What are some good reasons for producing >60% HEU?
| heresie-dabord wrote:
| 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.
| 1776smithadam wrote:
| > 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?
| mathgradthrow wrote:
| they were sprinting covertly. Thats why this happened.
| bjourne wrote:
| > 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...
| gorgoiler wrote:
| 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.
| crossroadsguy wrote:
| 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.
| koevet wrote:
| 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.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| fakedang wrote:
| 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.
| jraby3 wrote:
| No way is KSA helping Iran.
| crossroadsguy wrote:
| 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)
| slv77 wrote:
| 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.
| daveguy wrote:
| > explosively formed penetrators that killed 196 US
| troops...
|
| Well, it's a good thing Trump completely neutralized
| retaliatory action against US troops. /s
| slv77 wrote:
| 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.
| daveguy wrote:
| 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.
| baxuz wrote:
| 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.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| "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.
| hotmeals wrote:
| If the Norwegians or anyone for that matter got uppity...
| dudefeliciano wrote:
| you forgot that they're white, they don't factor in in this
| conversation
| fakedang wrote:
| > 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.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| 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.
| crossroadsguy wrote:
| 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.
| rightbyte wrote:
| Norway's parliament vote who to give Nobel's peace price,
| not the comittee.
| rocqua wrote:
| 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.
| frollogaston wrote:
| 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.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| 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!
| curiousgal wrote:
| 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.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| US will sell their mother to a devil if that makes good profit.
| Who cares about Gaza people?
| jampekka wrote:
| US support for Israel isn't even about profit. It's about
| corruption.
| tim333 wrote:
| A lot of them actually are influenced by the bible.
| dudefeliciano wrote:
| even more so, future humans may see Iran as one of the only
| moral states for doing "something" against Israel
| twixfel wrote:
| Israel was a mistake, easily one of the biggest foreign policy
| blunders of the 20th century. Look at everything that has
| followed from its creation. It is breathtaking how much Europe
| and America chooses to suffer for this small colonial outpost.
| We need a spine here in the West, we need to cut these lunatics
| adrift.
| seydor wrote:
| 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
| dgb23 wrote:
| But none of that is necessary. Why is the US suddenly so
| hostile towards China?
| seydor wrote:
| 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.
| dudefeliciano wrote:
| 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
| fastball wrote:
| 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.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| 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.
| Davidzheng wrote:
| 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?
| padjo wrote:
| Yes, they would. America is extremely insecure about not
| being number one and has a zero sum view of global
| politics.
| tim333 wrote:
| Because China started threatening war. It's not really
| sudden. It's from Xi coming to power and saying he'll take
| Taiwan.
| throwaway_dang wrote:
| 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.
| Panoramix wrote:
| 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%.
| v5v3 wrote:
| Starve China of its oil?
|
| Wouldn't Russia or Venezuela take up the slack.
| seydor wrote:
| yep sure, not starve, but every piece of containment helps
| v5v3 wrote:
| But if this happened, the price of oil would go up for
| everyone. As reducing supply increases demand for the
| remaining.
| jameslk wrote:
| 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.
| PeterHolzwarth wrote:
| 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.
| jameslk wrote:
| 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
| rocqua wrote:
| 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)
| gghhzzgghhzz wrote:
| 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
| littlestymaar wrote:
| 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.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| > 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.
| rocqua wrote:
| 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.
| czhu12 wrote:
| 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.
| alkonaut wrote:
| 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.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| >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.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Iran doesn't have air superiority (you probably misread
| which countries' regime I meant...)
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Probably. Since of the three involved only Iran has a
| regime. The other two have democratically elected
| governments.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| 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.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| >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.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| 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.
| samrus wrote:
| lets not go crazy here. israel didnt conduct those
| attacks as a false flag to dodge the regime change
| owebmaster wrote:
| all my allies are heroes and my enemies degenerates
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| Lets not jump to conclusions here, about what I meant.
| There are other possibilities, that you are not
| considering.
| youngtaff wrote:
| 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
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| > 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.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| 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.
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| Sorry if unclear, I was talking about Palestinians.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| I think you need to take a look at Gaza and revise a
| little about Israeli tactics.
| samrus wrote:
| 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
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Bin Laden was never part of any state's elite
| gpt5 wrote:
| The Iranian regime has gone through serious military blows
| in the past and survived. Their best course of action is
| de-escalation and regaining domestic control.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Yes I was primarily thinking about regime survival in
| Washington, not Teheran.
| czottmann wrote:
| I wish I could upvote this more than once. Well said.
| abcd_f wrote:
| > And it's similar in Iran.
|
| Nice.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Thanks. Autocrat jokes basically writing themselves at
| this point.
| medlazik wrote:
| Missiles don't sell themselves
| UmGuys wrote:
| 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.
| powerapple wrote:
| You think the not-Trump president would do something
| different? Not an American, but I have assumed the outcome
| would be the same.
| UmGuys wrote:
| 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.
| palmfacehn wrote:
| 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.
| UmGuys wrote:
| 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.
| lonelyasacloud wrote:
| > 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.
| samrus wrote:
| 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
| wat10000 wrote:
| 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.
| lif wrote:
| the protests in 2003 were massive
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| We're just one Iran-backed terrorist attack that causes mass
| casualties away from popular support for a war against Iran.
| huhtenberg wrote:
| 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.
| UmGuys wrote:
| What is this commentary? We literally just attacked them. We
| punched them in the face. We're doing the war. Not them.
| huhtenberg wrote:
| 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.
| logicchains wrote:
| 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".
| zabzonk wrote:
| Because of course no Iranian people work at those bombed
| sites.
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| So if China strategically bombed some US weapons research
| facilities, that would be just fine and normal?
| UmGuys wrote:
| ??? WTF are you on. If Iran bombs US research facilities
| it's okay? I don't understand at all.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| 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?"
| throwawaynagain wrote:
| 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.
| huhtenberg wrote:
| It's still almost an even split in the US -
| https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-
| sil...
| UncleMeat wrote:
| 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.
| Narretz wrote:
| 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.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| Which experience is that?
| Narretz wrote:
| 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.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| My hunch is Iran will bomb a US base, not causing any real
| damage, as a tough gesture and continue striking Israel.
| logicchains wrote:
| >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...
| navane wrote:
| 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.
| koonsolo wrote:
| This is the "Why don't you use diplomacy?" administration, right?
| So why didn't the great negotiator use diplomacy?
| snickerbockers wrote:
| 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.
| s_ting765 wrote:
| Which nuclear sites?
|
| https://x.com/iaeaorg/status/1936650574939685121
| totetsu wrote:
| And meanwhile the biggest threat to all our security, the climate
| crisis goes unaddressed.
| dudefeliciano wrote:
| 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".
| harambae wrote:
| 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.
| dudefeliciano wrote:
| > 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.
| dijit wrote:
| 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.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| 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.
| WickyNilliams wrote:
| 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.
| Findecanor wrote:
| 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.
| blueflow wrote:
| 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.
| mrbombastic wrote:
| 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?
| wat10000 wrote:
| Yeah, her behavior of being outspoken and blunt. And
| female, of course.
| Aachen wrote:
| 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)
| blueflow wrote:
| 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.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| 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.
| blueflow wrote:
| 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?
| UncleMeat wrote:
| 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.
| blueflow wrote:
| 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...
| UncleMeat wrote:
| 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.
| hashstring wrote:
| not just unaddressed, it worsens significantly...
| disposition2 wrote:
| 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/
| rapht wrote:
| > 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.
| hkpack wrote:
| These are all parts of the same equation.
| seydor wrote:
| 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)
| deepsquirrelnet wrote:
| 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...
| danh1979 wrote:
| 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...
| jopsen wrote:
| 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.
| herbst wrote:
| > 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?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| herbst wrote:
| So most of us had luck then I guess. For now
| tim333 wrote:
| Of course enriched uranium itself can't really be destroyed
| that way. Even if things collapsed they could tunnel in
| there.
| zorobo wrote:
| The material cannot be destroyed. However, uranium hexafluoride
| is very heavy and won't go far. Also, it reverts into a solid
| at <= 56 degC. Finally, it has a very long half life, meaning
| it is not super radioactive.
| UltraSane wrote:
| 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.
| thehappypm wrote:
| 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..
| andy_ppp wrote:
| 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?
| wvbdmp wrote:
| 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.
| artoghrul wrote:
| 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.
| HellDunkel wrote:
| There is more to be said about the voters than about the
| military industrial complex here.
| seydor wrote:
| the voters cannot be held accountable, but politicians can
| righthand wrote:
| The voters can be held accountable because Trump was known
| to have almost no foreign political experience. So much so
| that his first term they said Mike Pence would handle
| foreign relations (a huge departure from reason and Vpotus
| duties). You don't get to say "well this guy that has no
| experience is good for the country because we haven't been
| to war yet."
|
| Then when we're headed to war and passed all the obvious
| signs then say, "not my fault this known grifter got
| elected."
|
| Voters don't get to ignore Biden and previous
| administrations pulling us out of middle eastern wars and
| creating agreements with countries like Iran. Then voters
| were warned and ignored that the military and weapons
| lobbies are creating hysteria so they can go back to war
| and get that defense spending money back.
|
| The war machine has been behind Trump and Republicans for
| 10+ years and you missed it because voters believe one of
| Trump's lies about not wanting war. A guy who lies about
| everything has voters convinced.
| const_cast wrote:
| No, Trump voters can, and should, be held accountable. They
| based their entire vote on Trump being stupid and Trump
| being a liar, while, simultaneously, supporting the
| policies they claim Trump was lying about. These people are
| not stupid - they know what they're doing.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| 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.
| tartuffe78 wrote:
| The two party system has captured the government, we voters
| have no recourse at the polling booths.
| lawn wrote:
| 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.
| thrance wrote:
| 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?
| lawn wrote:
| 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.
| thrance wrote:
| 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.
| jtfrench wrote:
| Bodes well this does not.
| Simon_O_Rourke wrote:
| 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.
| tim333 wrote:
| Dunno - better than the alternative of Iran getting nukes.
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| It was not one or the other. Don't buy into that bullshit.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| 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).
| zild3d wrote:
| > 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
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| This only happens if Iran sits there and takes it. What if
| they close the strait? Or shoot missiles to US bases?
| infecto wrote:
| 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.
| gcanyon wrote:
| > 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?
| GlacierFox wrote:
| Iranian people hate the Ayatollahs. They execute any
| opposition. The populace is literally dying for change.
| swat535 wrote:
| Yes, they do but they love IRAN even more. Defending the
| country against hostile forces is going to be their
| priority.
| GlacierFox wrote:
| 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.
| bigyabai wrote:
| 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?
| spwa4 wrote:
| Compared to khomeini, who started out by killing (mostly
| after torture) about 3800, mostly his own allies, some of
| which hadn't even finished primary school?
| bigyabai wrote:
| Yes. America's "liberator complex" is pretty much the #1
| reason we got dicked down in Vietnam despite expecting a
| decisive victory.
| spwa4 wrote:
| I think you need to go back to the history of the Iranian
| revolution and re-read. America was largely with the
| shah, as was anyone with one iota of sense. The socialist
| liberator of the people was khomeini, with support from
| leftists worldwide, from Moscow to Brazil, Berlin to ...
|
| Socialists who kept supporting khomeini after it became
| very clear that he sent in thugs to murder his own
| supporters, so he could blame "zionists" for the
| killings, or that he sent snipers into a protest to fire
| from within the crowd at security services ... I mean
| socialists use tactics like that even today, although of
| course compared to khomeini even the KGB look like gentle
| souls.
|
| That's one reason everything about Iran's theocratic
| regime is called "revolutionary this", "the supreme
| blahblah council", or the double army structure, the
| reason that a theocracy has a ministry of labour (which
| unions are forced to be part of, you know, like the
| soviet union) ... it was created and organized by
| socialists. They came to power through student protests
| and union strikes.
|
| Then khomeini started executing them. First, 3800 at
| once, then between 300 and 1000 every year. Khamenei is
| dutifully continuing the islamist executions. This year
| is definitely going to be 5000+ executions.
|
| You know how many deaths are actually attributed to the
| evil interference of the US in Iran before the
| revolution? What socialists tried to fix? The reason they
| supported the mass-murdering clerics?
|
| ... 89 people.
| bigyabai wrote:
| I am so sorry that you insist on being humiliated like
| this: https://apnews.com/article/072580b5f24b4f8ea2402221
| d530257e
| GlacierFox wrote:
| 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?
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| 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.
| GlacierFox wrote:
| 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?
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| > 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..
| yibg wrote:
| 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.
| bitmasher9 wrote:
| 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.
| infecto wrote:
| 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.
| dreghgh wrote:
| 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.
| Panoramix wrote:
| 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?
| MF-DOOM wrote:
| 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.
| Beefin wrote:
| this couldn't be more false - jordan and saudi have been
| shooting down iranian drones. you think america/israel is
| alone in this dogfight?
| mjburgess wrote:
| 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.
| bamboozled wrote:
| _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 ?
| mjburgess wrote:
| 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*..._
| pliny wrote:
| >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).
| mjburgess wrote:
| 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.
| bamboozled wrote:
| 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.
| whynotminot wrote:
| 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.
| mjburgess wrote:
| 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.
| geysersam wrote:
| 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.
| mjburgess wrote:
| 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
| JohnBooty wrote:
| Iran claims to have shot down f35s
|
| The photos were so badly photoshopped, I'm honestly
| confused as to what their intent was.
| potholereseller wrote:
| > 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.
| bamboozled wrote:
| I am talking about open source and community driven
| footage and intel. Not CNN or Fox ?
| foobarian wrote:
| 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...
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| China buys all their oil so not sure how much the
| sanctions are a problem
| Invictus0 wrote:
| 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?
| mjburgess wrote:
| 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.
| whynotminot wrote:
| 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.
| mjburgess wrote:
| The ground invasion hasn't started yet, the US is
| supplying israel, and you can see my other comment.
| whynotminot wrote:
| 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.
| mjburgess wrote:
| 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.
| whynotminot wrote:
| 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.
| mjburgess wrote:
| Where did the US invade iraq from?
|
| https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-navy-receives-
| second-o...
| whynotminot wrote:
| 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.
| mjburgess wrote:
| 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.
| tome wrote:
| And if a ground invasion doesn't happen will you agree to
| never to speculate on the subject again?
| mjburgess wrote:
| No, nor have I said a ground invasion _will_ happen. It
| 's also an inherently ridiculous thing to say -- if I am
| wrong about highly complex geostrategic outcomes then i
| should never think about them again? By that logic, the
| entire US foreign policy establishment would likewise
| have to suspend its activities.
|
| In any case, I'm talking about inferred goals, capacity,
| strategy. I'm constructing a viable theory of what their
| strategy would be if they achieved their aims.
|
| The goals of israel are regime change and nuclear
| disarmament -- these cannot be achieved from the air. It
| might be that israel is content to lose on these
| objectives, and so be it.
|
| I expected that most of my comments here would be heavily
| downvoted, and its somewhat suprising that they arent.
| Most people are operating from a profoundly heavily
| propagandized view of foreign policy, and of their own
| countries -- and whenever one raises thinking about these
| issues in ways which suspend this propaganda one gets a
| very angry reaction: everyone one is a nationalist,
| either midly or extermely, but a nationalist never the
| less. Asking people to thinking critically about their
| nation is tantamount to asking them to thinking
| critically about their mother.
|
| Either way, I comment regardless for the few who are able
| to think clearly on these matters.
| tome wrote:
| > No, nor have I said a ground invasion will happen
|
| Oof, OK, I suppose not, you only said " _The_ [my
| emphasis] ground invasion hasn 't started yet". There is
| some degree of ambiguity there. Forgive me for thinking
| you were saying one _will_ happen.
|
| > The goals of israel are regime change and nuclear
| disarmament -- these cannot be achieved from the air.
|
| Ah! Is that a prediction you insist _will_ happen? That
| there will be no regime change and no end to Iran 's
| military nuclear programme without a ground invasion?
| Great! That's a testable hypothesis. Let's see.
|
| > It's also an inherently ridiculous thing to say -- if I
| am wrong about highly complex geostrategic outcomes then
| i should never think about them again?
|
| No, not at all (and I certainly didn't say "think", I
| said "speculate"). It's just a way of seeing if you put
| your money where your mouth is. If there is an incentive
| to someone predicting wrongly I'm more likely to take
| them seriously!
| mjburgess wrote:
| P(neither of those aims being achieved from the
| air|current strategy) = 90%
|
| if either were, this would be the first instnace in
| history -- so, presumably, i could be forgiven for the
| mistake
|
| but either way, I dont think israel believes they can be
| either
| kybernetikos wrote:
| > The goals of israel are regime change and nuclear
| disarmament -- these cannot be achieved from the air. It
| might be that israel is content to lose on these
| objectives, and so be it.
|
| This is key. The only way for this set of actions to go
| well is if there is regime change, otherwise the most
| likely outcome is that Iran's resolve to acquire nuclear
| weapons as quickly as possible has been dramatically
| solidified.
|
| Like you though, I struggle to see any clear path for
| positive regime change to occur. The nearest attempt
| would be boots (but whose?) on the ground, but even that
| seems unlikely to work out well. Maybe there could be
| some sort of internal resistance, but I don't see how
| they could operate successfully while the country is
| under external attack.
|
| My assumption with how things are at the moment is that
| the actions by Israel and the USA have all but guaranteed
| that Iran acquires a nuclear weapon in the next few
| decades, and so have dramatically increased the risk of
| Israel being attacked with one. One has to assume that
| radical Islamist terrorism in western countries will
| increase too.
| JoRyGu wrote:
| You have literally worked yourself up into hysteria if
| you think Israel is in any position to invade Iran, even
| with US support.
| mjburgess wrote:
| What do you mean by "in a position"? Do i think it would
| be successful? of course not, that's mad.
|
| Do I think israel is inclined to try, or otherwise, risk
| failure on the back of US blood and treasure? More or
| less, yes -- i think that's quite likely.
|
| The US invasion and occupation of vietnam, afganistan,
| iraq, etc. were all mad. The US foreign policy elite are
| not very competent because america doesnt receive any
| real blowback from its failures -- so there's no
| conditioning mechanism to force it into instutitonal
| competence.
|
| Do I think such an elite would do one more stupid thing?
| yes, its actually far more improbable that they'd learn
| caution
|
| They've bankrupted america, caused half the world to turn
| against them -- all the while presiding over the rise and
| enrichment of a peer competitor (china). You could not
| describe a more incompent, warmongering, self-destructive
| set of foreign policy institutions.
|
| It's what happens when you are isolated on your own
| continent and rarely have to pay for your decisions.
| bigyabai wrote:
| Operations are defined by goals. If you want to invade or
| launch a special forces op into your enemy territory, you
| need a small and attainable goal. Not "eliminate all
| nuclear threats" but more like "clear this area of
| nuclear materiel" in any areas you consider suspect.
| Otherwise you end up deploying troops that never come
| home.
|
| Israel's state government is absolutely filled to the
| brim with war hawks - but they're not stupid. The
| situation they want to contain is too large to fix with
| IDF ground forces, they _necessarily have_ to involve US
| force structures to seriously challenge Iran. And even
| then, it feels likely that we 'd be looking at an Afghan
| War situation where guerrilla combat absolutely shreds
| the modern forces the further they push in.
| mjburgess wrote:
| "they're not that stupid" has not been a good predictive
| theory of western foreign policy since the victorian era
| bigyabai wrote:
| Look, I don't want to get pissy because your track-record
| in this comment chain is mostly on-point. Boots are about
| to deploy on Iranian soil, and it's going to be a
| deliberate bloodbath for the first few days. Israel is
| going to piss and moan until America sends over more
| assets and materiel, at which point we'll be firmly in
| WWIII territory. It's downright bad, and you're not at
| all hyperbolic to lay things out like this.
|
| ...but I will repeat myself - this is an attack of
| opportunity for Israel, _not_ a desperate scramble to
| destroy nuclear assets. Israel 's long-term goal is to
| become the unquestioned geopolitical power of the Levant,
| even outside America's auspices. They can do that by
| leveraging the dumb-as-a-brick administration to provoke
| Iran into a response, at which point they will fight
| until attrition forces them both to retreat. Now Israeli
| forces are the de-facto security guarantor in the region,
| and we already know they draw their borders however they
| like.
|
| Mind you, this isn't the last you'll hear about "Iran's
| nuclear program" - it hasn't outlived it's usefulness,
| quite yet. Israel will continue targeting them _not_
| until nuclear assets are destroyed, but until America
| perceives itself to be backed into a corner with no
| choice but to search Iran door-to-door for a hidden bomb.
| (Stretch Goal - +100 Brownie Points: get America to
| launch a tactical nuclear weapon on Iran and increase the
| escalation ladder beyond what any peer power can compete
| with.)
| blindriver wrote:
| > All of these claims are false.
|
| Source please.
| LeonB wrote:
| 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.
| umbra07 wrote:
| 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.
| floatrock wrote:
| > 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.
| pimeys wrote:
| 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.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| The problem for Iran is that it also hurts itself as its
| own terminals are upstream of the straight
| tguvot wrote:
| houthis been using iran supplied anti ship missiles. not
| exactly stuff that you pickup in bass pro shops
| diggan wrote:
| > 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.
| sanderjd wrote:
| 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.
| EasyMark wrote:
| 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.
| noobermin wrote:
| At least this comment is second top post. That's all this is,
| and the American media will cheerlead for it.
| thrance wrote:
| Gotta somehow manufacture consent for something indefensible.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Yep, the market was already on a precarious footing. Monday
| will likely be a blood bath.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| Futures are up. The market was also up last Friday when the
| Israel started bombing Iran
| Eavolution wrote:
| 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?
| wvbdmp wrote:
| 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.
| ozgrakkurt wrote:
| 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.
| password54321 wrote:
| 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.
| anonnon wrote:
| 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.
| throwanem wrote:
| 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."
| Ciantic wrote:
| 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.
| Stevvo wrote:
| 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.
| bamboozled wrote:
| 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 ?
| HEmanZ wrote:
| 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.
| jraby3 wrote:
| They have repeatedly threatened Israel and the US.
| Nothing good (for western democracies) comes from Iran
| getting a bomb.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Doesn't Pakistan and NK do the same? They have bombs.
| Where is the promised armageddon?
| bamboozled wrote:
| Isn't the idea to have less NK and Pakistans though ?
| baxuz wrote:
| Israel has also threatened with nuclear weapons:
|
| https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/wait-why-is-israel-
| allow...
| yibg wrote:
| Nothing good comes from Iran getting a bomb for us,
| doesn't mean it's not good for the Iranian regime.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| 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.
| luckylion wrote:
| "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.
| HEmanZ wrote:
| 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.
| js4ever wrote:
| lets hope they get replaced and we can have "democratic
| republic of perse" that would be so much better than what
| iran is currently
| HEmanZ wrote:
| 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.
| js4ever wrote:
| 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?
| bamboozled wrote:
| 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...
| ngruhn wrote:
| 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.
| HEmanZ wrote:
| 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.
| bamboozled wrote:
| 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)
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > 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.
| dmbche wrote:
| 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?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Gabbard is a stooge for the Russia/Iran axis, a faction
| within MAGA which has recently lost out to the stooges
| for Israel.
| dmbche wrote:
| 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?
| tim333 wrote:
| Or regime change. Not saying it's a good idea but I'd give it
| at least 50/50 of happening.
| cced wrote:
| How do you negotiate with a country(ies?) that blows up your
| chief negotiators?
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Carefully and with submissiveness.
| kyrra wrote:
| > 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.
| daveguy wrote:
| 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.
| probably_wrong wrote:
| > _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...
| thimabi wrote:
| > 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.
| hereme888 wrote:
| That would be so far into the future, the Ayatollah will be far
| gone by then.
| sanderjd wrote:
| 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.
| make3 wrote:
| maybe in 11 to 15 years after eventual respective Democratic
| and a non-Trump Republican governments
| andrewflnr wrote:
| 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.
| make3 wrote:
| 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
| sanderjd wrote:
| Very unlikely. He won twice and fully owns one of our two
| parties. Any hope for "he was an aberration" died last
| November.
| sanderjd wrote:
| 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.
| yibg wrote:
| 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.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| 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.
| sanderjd wrote:
| "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.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| >"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?
| sanderjd wrote:
| 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).
| const_cast wrote:
| Would Trump, a known liar and antognizer, lied and
| antagonized a foreign nation?
|
| Yeah, probably.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| That doesn't sound like a credible negotiating partner.
| pythonic_hell wrote:
| 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.
| tim333 wrote:
| How are Europe's leaders reacting to this? I'm not sure the
| rest of the world can do much except watch.
| Bostonian wrote:
| 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.
| netsharc wrote:
| 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
| buyucu wrote:
| If this doesn't convince Iran to make nuclear bombs, nothing
| will.
| ngruhn wrote:
| They were already convinced. That's why they're getting bombed.
| austin-cheney wrote:
| 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.
| geeunits wrote:
| Has everyone forgotten the music festival massacre?
| austin-cheney wrote:
| Not Iran related and not US related.
| geeunits wrote:
| Ah, it happened in a vacuum -- got it.
| austin-cheney wrote:
| That is what all the intelligence says. I am unclear what
| you are hinting at.
| tgv wrote:
| Hamas was installed, backed and supplied by Iran.
| austin-cheney wrote:
| 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...
| regularjack wrote:
| No one can possible forget, given that we're reminded daily
| of it, you know, by the ongoing genocide.
| belter wrote:
| 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.
| zac23or wrote:
| > Iran did not attack Israel. Israel attacked Iran.
|
| Hamas, Houthis and Hezbollah are supported by Iran.
| austin-cheney wrote:
| 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.
| tim333 wrote:
| 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...
| austin-cheney wrote:
| 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.
| tim333 wrote:
| 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?
| austin-cheney wrote:
| 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.
| zac23or wrote:
| > 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.
| austin-cheney wrote:
| 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.
| frollogaston wrote:
| Relax.
| kurtis_reed wrote:
| Lol
| tayistay wrote:
| Re 2: Iran previously launched drones and missiles at Israel
| about a year ago. See https://apnews.com/article/strait-of-
| hormuz-vessel-33fcffde2...
| austin-cheney wrote:
| 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.
| ianks wrote:
| No one in their right mind wants the Supreme Leader armed with
| nukes... but there are many ways to prevent this outcome.
| Aachen wrote:
| 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?
| luckylion wrote:
| Supreme Leader (officially Supreme Leadership Authority) is
| the head of state of Iran, combining both political and
| religious ultimate power, appointed for life.
| TurboTveit wrote:
| It is the official title for the head of state in Iran.
| croes wrote:
| 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
| grumple wrote:
| 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.
| nsingh2 wrote:
| > 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?)
| einrealist wrote:
| Those UN buildings in Geneva and New York, are they up for sale
| already? What about the buildings of the US Congress?
| v5v3 wrote:
| 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.
| christophilus wrote:
| How do we know they didn't? I'd be surprised if this is
| actually one and done.
| tasuki wrote:
| Trump tweeted it, must be definitely true!
| kkarakk wrote:
| 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.
| luckylion wrote:
| 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.
| Bluestein wrote:
| 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.-
| v5v3 wrote:
| 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...
| frob wrote:
| 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.
| v5v3 wrote:
| 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.
| ujkhsjkdhf234 wrote:
| 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.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| 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.
| gspencley wrote:
| 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.
| throw310822 wrote:
| 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.
| nivertech wrote:
| 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
| nivertech wrote:
| _> 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 Baha'is, 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)?
| tim333 wrote:
| 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.
| EvgeniyZh wrote:
| 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.
| bearjaws wrote:
| 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.
| hkpack wrote:
| > 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?
| kyrra wrote:
| Can you give some context here? You are saying something
| pretty wild.
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| I think they're referring to ICE
| Eextra953 wrote:
| 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.
| righthand wrote:
| No it's not: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of
| _Mahmoud_Khalil
| const_cast wrote:
| 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.
| prh8 wrote:
| Yes, it is, but HN is about as toxic red as Blind, just
| masked by lots of technical arrogance
| bearjaws wrote:
| You know who Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia because America
| is still quite far from being Iran.
|
| I can't tell if you are even serious to draw the
| comparison, if you get disappeared in Iran there is
| literally nothing to help you.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| 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?
| saagarjha wrote:
| To extend this admittedly awful analogy domestic abuse can be
| preferable to being murdered.
| bamboozled wrote:
| As long they're not women who don't want to cover their head in
| rags , they'll be fine ?
| foobarian wrote:
| > one of the safest places _in the Middle East_
|
| Added emphasis
| mathgradthrow wrote:
| it seems to be a pretty safe place to be mossad.
| frollogaston wrote:
| 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.
| gosub100 wrote:
| as long as they dont get raped, or refuse to wear their hijab
| nickpsecurity wrote:
| 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).
| johncole wrote:
| Is HN getting political now?
| nailer wrote:
| 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.
| neilv wrote:
| 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.
| wslh wrote:
| 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.
| NalNezumi wrote:
| 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.
| soared wrote:
| 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.
| tim333 wrote:
| Voter polls?
| nsingh2 wrote:
| 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.
| bettercallsalad wrote:
| 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.
| password54321 wrote:
| 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?
| jmyeet wrote:
| 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.
| password54321 wrote:
| 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-...
| Rover222 wrote:
| 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.
| croes wrote:
| 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.
| Rover222 wrote:
| 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.
| croes wrote:
| 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"
| dlubarov wrote:
| 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).
| tasuki wrote:
| > 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.
| dlubarov wrote:
| 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.
| sepisoad wrote:
| 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.
| tim333 wrote:
| 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.
| swat535 wrote:
| 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.
| zorobo wrote:
| 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.
| kyo_gisors wrote:
| Well I'm convinced, thanks GPT slop.
| nsingh2 wrote:
| 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.
| VikingCoder wrote:
| "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?
| lolinder wrote:
| 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.
| bigyabai wrote:
| 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
| lolinder wrote:
| Yes, that too. It was in _newspapers_ hours before the
| attack, so there 's no way Iran didn't know it was coming.
| perihelions wrote:
| > _" 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"_)
| rudolph9 wrote:
| The enriched uranium was reportedly moved before the bombing.
| As far as I know, the objective was to destroy the enrichment
| facilities.
| timhigins wrote:
| 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...
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| Those sites getting blown up was kinda obvious. I would have
| been shocked if they didn't move everything once Israel sneak
| attacked them.
| trothamel wrote:
| 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.
| mrcwinn wrote:
| 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.
| weatherlite wrote:
| I wish more people were able to perform more balanced/critical
| thinking like that instead of constantly cheering for their
| team.
| farts_mckensy wrote:
| 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.
| adonese wrote:
| 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.
| devzx wrote:
| This thread is a prime example of education != wisdom.
| uncircle wrote:
| 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.
| GMoromisato wrote:
| Not the whole thread--just the posts I disagree with.
| AaronAPU wrote:
| I think both sides can agree, the other side is stupid and
| evil.
| simpaticoder wrote:
| 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.
| perihelions wrote:
| 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.
| amai wrote:
| 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.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| 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.
| qeternity wrote:
| 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.
| pixelpoet wrote:
| It was a whole lot easier to take nukes away from a country
| until America fed Ukraine to the wolves. Great job...
| nine_k wrote:
| 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.
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| 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.
| luckylion wrote:
| They could sell the oil instead. Even theocracies like money
| a whole lot.
| mystified5016 wrote:
| 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
| bitmasher9 wrote:
| Sell oil, use income to diversify the economy is a well
| worn strategy.
| make3 wrote:
| 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.
| themagician wrote:
| 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.
| nine_k wrote:
| 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?)
| themagician wrote:
| > 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?
| McDyver wrote:
| > 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...
| regularjack wrote:
| 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.
| 1024core wrote:
| 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?!?
| swesour wrote:
| Because they don't want Jews to have their own state.
| delfinom wrote:
| 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.
| ngruhn wrote:
| 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?
| nsingh2 wrote:
| 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
| hereme888 wrote:
| 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.
| GMoromisato wrote:
| 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?
| 827a wrote:
| 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.
| xdennis wrote:
| 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.
| sanderjd wrote:
| 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!
| GMoromisato wrote:
| 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.
| sanderjd wrote:
| 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.
| GMoromisato wrote:
| 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.
| sanderjd wrote:
| 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.
| 827a wrote:
| 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.
| chasd00 wrote:
| > 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.
| sanderjd wrote:
| > _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 neighborhood rivals.
| 827a wrote:
| 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.
| jonp888 wrote:
| 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.
| sanderjd wrote:
| 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.
| sanderjd wrote:
| 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.
| 827a wrote:
| > 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.
| voytec wrote:
| > 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.
| chasd00 wrote:
| Iirc Ukraine had nukes but no way to use them. They
| didn't have the keys so to speak so they were basically a
| storage location. The nukes were worthless as a
| deterrent.
| sanderjd wrote:
| It would have been easier to solve that problem than to
| spin up an entire nuclear weapons capability from
| scratch.
| nivertech wrote:
| 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/
| rawgabbit wrote:
| #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 sites
| deepsquirrelnet wrote:
| Worldwide, 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.
| layer8 wrote:
| 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.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| 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.
| shutupnerd0000 wrote:
| Are we allowing politics on Hacker News now?
|
| > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics
| monkeyelite wrote:
| They let it happen when they want it to but the rule remains
| for any other inconvenient time.
| seshagiric wrote:
| I think Netanyahu cleverly played on Trump's ego to get him to
| strike Iran.
| lhousa wrote:
| 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.
| bentobean wrote:
| > 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.
| abvdasker wrote:
| I think if you're China the smart thing to do would be to
| immediately send Iran a couple nukes. Would put an end to the
| conflict pretty much immediately.
| Sammi wrote:
| That would not improve china's situation.
| athrowaway3z wrote:
| 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?
| ajkjk wrote:
| "why was it" and "was it" both, though...
| justinbaker84 wrote:
| I predict a false flag cyber attack on the US that is supposed
| to whip us into a frenzy for war in Iran.
| didntknowyou wrote:
| that's a loaded question, as if everyone had agreed bombing was
| needed at any stage
| sterlind wrote:
| 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._
| BerlinKebab wrote:
| All of you shit lefties asking about "why did the US just do
| this?" should be deported to Iran / Gaza immetiadely.
|
| As a Libertarian Central European, i appreciate these attacks.
| Fuck Mullahs and Muslims.
| randomNumber7 wrote:
| Whoever is really incapable to understand why Israel cannot
| accept a state to have nuclear weapons that openly calls for
| their annihilation should never be allowed to write code in
| production.
| regularjack wrote:
| Please. The Israeli government is currently engaged in
| genocide, and has been illegally occupying neighboring lands
| for decades. They are not the good guys
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-22 23:02 UTC)