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.

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?

This only happens if Iran sits there and takes it. What if they close the strait? Or shoot missiles to US bases?

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.

Gotta somehow manufacture consent for something indefensible.

It was not one or the other. Don't buy into that bullshit.

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-...

> 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?

To extend this admittedly awful analogy domestic abuse can be preferable to being murdered.

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?

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.

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 ?

I guess because many men are needed for the IRGC and related organisations.

Right...the GBU-57 having been placed into service in 2011 was surely created to destroy 65-year old bunker designs.

GBU-57 reaches 200ft depth, Fordow is 300ft. The seismic wave of explosion at 200ft of several tons of TNT would reach 300ft with pretty damaging energy.

And, if it weren't enough, you can always put a second bomb into the hole made by the first one.

To the commenters below:

- nobody would let Iran to come even close to remilitarizing again. No centrifuges, and no placing them or anything similar under ground, etc.

- I do think that US may get involved in enforcement of no-fly zone over Iran. The no-fly is necessary, and Israel just doesn't have enough resources. The further scenario that i see is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44343063

- jugding by, for example, the precise drone strikes on the top military commanders, Israel has had very good intelligence from Iran, so i'm pretty sure that general parameters like the depth were well known to them (the public statement of 300ft may be a lie, yet the point is that US and Israel know the depth and thus weapons to use)

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)

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

the bunker buster, if used, will almost certainly be nuclear. estimated tonnage: 300 kt

> keep dropping bombs into the same bomb-hole

I wonder how practical this part is.

>Can I say again how deeply silly this munition is?

If it is silly and it works, then it is not silly. If I remember correctly you have good cryptography skills. Rectothermal/rubber hose cryptoanalysis is quite silly too, but breaks AES,RSA,ECC and post quantum crypto schemes in 30 seconds.

So many armchair quarterbacks in this thread. You haven’t defined how silly this is beyond your feelings. Are you a munition expert? If you were an AF general given this order, what tactic would you choose excluding a nuke?

  The same bomb hole tactic is an untested theory (which may be ineffective but not silly) but we’ll know more later this week once MAXAR surveillance and other independent or IAEA analysis rolls in.

I 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.

The MOP is meant for a different use than the MOAB, it isn't about size. The MOAB is meant for surface destruction, the MOP is a penetrating ordinance meant to go deep through rock before eventually exploding.

Different outcomes. Moab is fuel air explosion and causes massive pressure wave disruption, it's usable against tunnels but operates on a different principle. Bunker buster is an earth penetration weapon to make a camouflet happen and destroy structural integrity.

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.

> 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...

  - 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.

It seems that they have help from the Russians. Putin last week mentioned that there are quite a few Russian nuclear scientists in Iran.

I've heard 6 at Fordow, and 30 or so Tomahawks across Natanz and Isfahan.

> 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.

How is this relevant to Trump bombing Iran?

> 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.

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.

> "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).

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.

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.

Don’t forget Ukraine - gave up their nukes and look what happened

> You lack that deterrent you get attacked, as simple as that. Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked.

Or had them, and then gave them up because they were under the impression that they would be protected if they did so; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_de...

> 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?

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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?

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)

why do you view nukes as the ultimate deterrent? Israel has nukes and it gets attacked. This proves the above is a logical fallacy.

> 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).

> 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.

Add Ukraine to that list.

Ukraine is another example from a different area

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.

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

> 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.

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.

NK is more of a russian client state, not chinese.

Iran is more like a server state, it serves terror and death through their proxies. It's like a vpn of destruction.

Care to elaborate? A random person doubting things doesn't help other people or bringing a discussion forward.

> No increase in radiation levels have been detected, the UN's nuclear watchdog says

I guess means no. However I have no idea what they would say if they did. "Yes we poisoned the whole area for generations to come, success!"

I 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.

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.

How do you purport to know this?

I'm willing to bet that the Americans can build another one of those GBU-57 bombs every some months if they had to.

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.