Remix.run Logo
cakealert 12 hours ago

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.

epolanski 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

margorczynski 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

elcritch 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

ExoticPearTree 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

roenxi 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

krzyk 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

fortran77 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

rajup 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

dekelpilli 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

mu53 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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.

mattmaroon 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>(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.

epolanski 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

jeswin 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

ashoeafoot 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

echoangle 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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 5 hours ago | parent [-]

By the moral law of not being a hypocrite, for one.

solumunus 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Silly! Such flippant language. Yes, it would be silly. Jihadists do “silly” things all the time. Their goals are “silly”.

dlahoda 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

rusk 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> gov of iran says israel is little satan

A pretty popular opinion these days

margorczynski 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

FrozenSynapse 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> it would mean mutual destruction.

some religious lunatics would deem that worthy

m000 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> some religious lunatics would deem that worthy

That would be primarily Evangelical Zionists, seeking to hasten the end of days.

dlahoda 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

it will not be mutual. look at map and size of countries.

so it even no need to be lunatic to act some nukes.

foolserrandboy 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

dlahoda 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

israel is way smaller and easier to bomb.

why would not iran gov sacrifice few million of its people to kill whole israel?

spwa4 8 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

mattmaroon 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 4 hours ago | parent [-]

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 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

perihelions 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> "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).

nine_k 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

slv77 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

davedx 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

lIl-IIIl 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They never really had them. They were in Ukraine but Moscow had control.

varjag 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

cromka 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Then why would they need a full Budapest memorandum with co-signees if Moscow could just take them back?

This sounds ridiculous.

TiredOfLife 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And Ukraine built them.

libertine 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

justsomehnguy 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 7 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

walterlw 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

b33j0r 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

averageRoyalty 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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?

FpUser 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>"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.

lonelyasacloud 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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...

ashoeafoot 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

gcanyon 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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?

ben_w 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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?

dummydummy1234 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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.

amelius 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I have a question: why did China allow NK to develop nukes?

gcanyon 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

compsciphd 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
contrarian1234 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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)

quonn 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Ukraine would like to have a word with you.

scotty79 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

moltude 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Add Ukraine to that list.

BrandoElFollito 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ukraine is another example from a different area

dreghgh 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

diggan 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

dreghgh 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 7 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

nivertech 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 5 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

JumpCrisscross 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

vixen99 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

jandrewrogers 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

choonway 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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

yard2010 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

dudefeliciano 10 hours ago | parent [-]

then what is the US pray tell? The cloudflare of killing?

20after4 9 hours ago | parent [-]

That's a fairly apt comparison actually.

heresie-dabord 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

alkyon 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

birn559 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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

fifilura 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> transported things away

This implies a tunnel system, or was this transport done in plain sight?

motorest 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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 10 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

m000 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

herbst 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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!"

KevinCarbonara 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

hackerknew 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 10 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

Ygg2 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Don't worry, we can just engage in a bombing campaign against a foreign nation indefinitely."

nmca 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How do you purport to know this?

hajile 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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).

coffeebeqn 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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)

stickfigure 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

adventured 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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

dreghgh 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, this was also said about Iraq in 1991.

UncleMeat 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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?

adventured 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

tharmas 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Overthrow and get what? Another Libya?

foldr 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree. Bombing can only "do" so much....

dlahoda 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

elif 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 2 minutes ago | parent [-]

> All the intelligence says they weren't building nukes

> IAEA inspectors

What are some good reasons for producing >60% HEU?

FilosofumRex 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe the fact that every single one of these representatives has been appointed in a fair democratic vote?

tsimionescu 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Iran became a theocracy through a popular uprising, too. Democracy and theocracy are quite compatible, as long as the people are religious enough.

9dev 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

baxtr 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

motorest 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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?

UncleMeat 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is it a fair democratic vote when a very substantial number of the people that Israel claims are residents cannot participate in this vote?

ngcazz 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

hiddencost 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Liar

9dev 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Enlighten me, which part of my comment was a lie?

dekelpilli 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It would quite concerning if Israel had non-Zionist (read: not in favour of the existence of Israel) parties.

vixen99 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

CactusRocket 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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 7 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

djfivyvusn 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

motorest 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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

CalChris 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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_Martyrs_...

(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,"

samjones33 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

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 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 7 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

hiddencost 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Absurd.

10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
1776smithadam 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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?

simonh 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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?

McAlpine5892 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

GlacierFox 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

_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.

imperfect_blue 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>> 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 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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

lokimedes 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Those with the spirit to strike, will always dominate those with a mind to moderate.

KnightSaysNi 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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"

ngcazz 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

adastra22 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Israel is the only democratic country in the Middle East. Support for Israel extends beyond religious justifications.

throw310822 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

k7sune 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

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

nine_k 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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)

ivell 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

energy123 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

petre 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure, they're making weapons grade uranium to exhibit it in the Museum of the Islamic Revolution and the Holy Defense in Teheran.

FilosofumRex 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

9dev 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

ivell 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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?

dismalaf 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

golol 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can oppose something or you can create terorrist militias to attack Israel and destabilize its neighboring countries.

dartharva 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

edanm 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

fortran77 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A complete inversion of history. What an insane take!

alex1138 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
pbhjpbhj 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

kikimora 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

compiler_queen 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

elcritch 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

kanbara 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

_tik_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Then how is that any different from what the USA has done. Bombing and destroying many countries in the name of spreading democracy?

bambax 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Ah, yes, Israel famously publicly declaring that its' holy mission is to destroy Iran. Happened so many times, yes.

mykowebhn 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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

powerapple 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What's the reason of incompatibility of Islam and Jewish religion?

elcritch 7 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

tharmas 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Israel has nukes, so why would they be afraid of Iran?

raffraffraff 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

deepsun 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Same reason the U.S. and USSR were afraid of each other in the Cold War.

shusaku 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

dismalaf 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

motorest 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

snapetom 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

jhanschoo 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

asadm 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

... so you preemptively attack every neighbor and commit genocide?

lostmsu 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Was this bombing a genocide?

Krasnol 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 6 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

throw310822 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

jdietrich 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The dehumanising thing is to steadfastly believe that deep down everyone holds secular liberal values, regardless of their words and actions.

Secular discussion about conflict in the Middle East frequently discounts the possibility that self-professed religious fundamentalists are in fact religious fundamentalists. A lot of Israeli settlers really do believe that they are fulfilling a sacred duty. A lot of Palestinians really do believe that becoming a martyr for al-Aqsa guarantees them an eternity in paradise. A lot of American Evangelicals really do believe that conflict in the Middle East will bring about the day of judgement.

I might believe that we live in a godless and meaningless universe in which death is final, but that puts me in a very small minority. Most people -throughout history and across the world - frequently act in ways that are totally irrational from a secular perspective, but are perfectly logical within a framework of faith.

9dev 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You’d need to make a distinction between the Iranian regime, a corrupt band of thieves in charge of the government, infused by religion, and the Iranian people, who have been suffering through this for almost half a century. Any criticism is directed against the former, and fully valid: These people are fanatical idiots, albeit dangerous.

sreekanth850 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That is why they formed the Axis of Resistance. They will act through their proxies. And imagine if Hezbollah or the Houthis got nuclear weapons, the whole world would be threatened.

dotancohen 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

  > To suggest Iran would do it anyway is equivalent to saying that they're completely, crazy, fanatical, genocidal and stupid
It's the Iranian government saying they'd do it, not westerners. And you seem to have some sort of culture complex. Their culture is different than yours (not better, not worse, but different) and for them dying to liberate land from infidels is not crazy, it is the highest honour their society bestows.

There is nothing racist or dehumanising about acknowledging cultures different from your own. In fact, I would say that assuming everybody adheres to your cultural values is the racist position.

dartharva 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To suggest Iran would do it anyway would actually just be taking Iranian leadership at their word.

JodieBenitez 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

farzd 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

recroad 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why are you assuming that Iran wants to destroy Israel? Everything I’ve actually seen is the complete opposite: it’s Israel that clearly wants to destroy Israel.

The whole “preemptive strike” stuff is BS and not a serious argument.

intermerda 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Why are you assuming that Iran wants to destroy Israel?

I'm guessing from the words and actions of Iranian leaders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Irani...

motorest 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Why are you assuming that Iran wants to destroy Israel? Everything I’ve actually seen is the complete opposite: it’s Israel that clearly wants to destroy Israel.

Even by your own logic, do you believe that having a country threaten your existence is not reason enough to want them destroyed?

AlecSchueler 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Iran was one of the first countries in the Middle East to recognize Israel. But it all changed since Islamic Revolution. Their official position since than have been that Israel cannot exist. They don't even refer to it as Israel but as "Zionist Regime". It's their official public position and what they say on their (government controlled) TV. They've been fighting proxy war with Israel since 80s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Irani...

ngcazz 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 5 hours ago | parent [-]

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 5 hours ago | parent [-]

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

mathgradthrow 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

they were sprinting covertly. Thats why this happened.

8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
seydor 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> by having a theocracy they

Religion is just another ideology, and it s not like Islam has a specific position about nuclear energy

hajile 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

ebb_earl_co 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

littlestymaar 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

dandanua 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"In God we trust"

adastra22 9 hours ago | parent [-]

A cheap shot ignorant of the history and context of that phrase.

belter 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

or, you know, they just want power generators, like they claimed for decades now and all the UN auditors confirmed every time?

recroad 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thank you, great liberator. Please bomb us more to save our lives.

Gareth321 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Are you seriously suggesting that Israel doesn’t target civilians? Are you following the events of the last 2 years?

hashstring 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
hackerknew 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

mullingitover 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

recroad 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

InsideOutSanta 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

jokowueu 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Iraq flash backs , they were sure very happy to greet their liberators , it's amazing to see propaganda's effects working in action

fifilura 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

dimator 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

dreghgh 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

vasco 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How many Iranians do you know that told you that?

vFunct 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

tsimionescu 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

anticodon 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

bobxmax 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

stuckkeys 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

Hikikomori 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

US didn't like it the last time the Iranian people got their regime change.

chgs 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

pjpyao 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

k4rli 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

deepsun 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
jonyt 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

diggan 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> Dictators are not the good the good guys, for their people or their neighbors.

Trying to find a clear line of "good vs evil guys" is bound to led you down a bad path. Is how Iran treat people very shitty and outright evil? Yes. Does that mean other countries should feel OK with invading them to "liberate" them? Probably no and feels like a very dangerous line of thinking that could be used to invade basically any country, including the US itself.

I don't think many people are arguing that Iran is some beacon of democracy and treating their people right, but regardless of that, we tend to favor sovereignty of nations for a good reason, yet it seems like some countries still struggle with accepting this.

jonyt 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Iran isn't being attacked because it's not nice to its own people (which is a shame really, all dictators and theocrats should worry for their lives). It's being attacked because it has ballistic missiles, a nuclear weapons program, a giant sign in the middle of Tehran counting down the existence of Israel and its leaders have repeatedly called for Israel's destruction. So weapon, opportunity and motive. It's of course free to work towards the destruction of Israel but then it's hardly fair to complain that Israel may try to preempt that.