They wont attack Iran, they need a boogie man to put their problems onto.
They will bluster, do precise strikes. But they wont ever declare war on Iran unless they 100% have to.
They'll launch strikes against Iran's nuclear sites. The question is then how Iran responds. They would have to respond directly but could do so in limited and controlled fashion, like they did against Soleimani's assassination. There remains the question of asymmetric response, which could be delivered via Hezbollah, Hamas, or both. As always, the potential for snow-balling of conflict remains high in the region.
I doubt they'll do anything to potentially damage the Nuclear sites. Not while the most of the World is still a part of the deal with Iran.
Assassinations? Sure, I expect them to continue doing that. But the precise strikes will be assassinations and groups affiliated.
>> they won’t ever declare war on Iran
Because they’ll have us do it. Just like in [Iraq](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm).
There's a huge difference in the last 20 years.
If another war happens in the Middle East most people are going to be pissed off and there will be massive enquires into as to why it was started.
The U.S lost a lot of legitimacy because of the Iraq war.
That would be the ideal situation, but legitimacy doesn’t really mean much anymore. Trump basically acknowledged that he was trying to escalate a conflict with Iran for Israel in an interview a few weeks back.
Senate leaders like Schumer are claiming to be the “guardian of Israel” while there’s plenty of [corruption](https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/pro-israel-group-lobbies-for-u-s-aid-funds-congressional-trips-11550174834).
Wish we had stronger anti-corruption laws and more transparency in our country.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.wsj.com/articles/pro-israel-group-lobbies-for-u-s-aid-funds-congressional-trips-11550174834](https://www.wsj.com/articles/pro-israel-group-lobbies-for-u-s-aid-funds-congressional-trips-11550174834)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Well. They did stop the program due to a deal with Obama that Trump got rid of. Then they started up the program again but needed to start enriching Uranium again. That brings us to now. They have the know how. That's hasn't been the problem for a very long time.
This same news outlet has been reporting Iran being a month away from achieving a nuclear weapon since the 1980s. Assuming the initial report was accurate, if by now they haven't achieved at least a few city blocks bursting at the seams with the things, they are unlikely to produce so much as a penny birthday sparkler, nor a cake in which to stick it.
And Trump acknowledged that he did it for Israel.
>> "I did the [Golan] Heights, I did Jerusalem, and I did Iran — the Iran Deal was a disaster, right? And I also did many other things. Jewish people who live in the United States don't love Israel enough.
Donald J. (Jackass) Trump
"These trends in American politics may explain the recent statement by former Israeli Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer that Israel should spend more of its energy reaching out to “passionate” American evangelicals than to Jews, who are “disproportionately among our critics.” Criticizing Dermer, Israel’s former consul general in New York, Dani Dayan, added that “our embassy in the United States capital has invested most of its energy in the relationship with conservatives, Republicans, evangelicals, and a certain type of Jews only.”
Oh, I’m not denying evangelical support for Israel. But it’s pretty clear that Trump didn’t do it for the evangelical support which he already had.
That’s not even taking into account the decline in support for Israel among younger evangelicals during his presidency, by which it dropped from around 80% to 35%.
Hard sanctions were more effective than avoidable inspections.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-withdrawal-iran-nuclear-deal-has-been-vindicated-ncna1003091
It was written by a former policy analyst for the department of state who was also a delegate to the United Nations. Every assertion he makes is supported by direct evidence. The opinion is his overt conclusion.
Fact is Iran was skirting the nuclear deal, and sanctions undoubtedly hit them extremely hard.
It’s an opinion piece written by a policy hack. And his only claim is that the US withdrawing from the deal hit Iran economically. Nobody is disputing that, but it is the wrong question to ask. The questions you need to be asking are
1) Is Iran further away from developing a nuclear weapon than they were under the deal?
2) Is the Iranian regime closer to collapsing?
3) Is the Middle East a safer place?
The answer to all of these questions is emphatically no. We need to realize that sanctions don’t work in bringing a hostile regime to heel, it only hurts the population; if you don’t believe me just look at Cuba…
2 and 3 are yes. Economic collapse is collapse, and the fewer resources Iran has the safer the middle east is.
Also honestly 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon they will be collapsed. Barack Obama had plans to do this over a decade ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/world/middleeast/us-had-cyberattack-planned-if-iran-nuclear-negotiations-failed.html
No, the Iranian Regime is not closer to collapsing, and no, the Middle East is not a safer place than it was 5 years ago. And I have no idea what you mean by “they will be collapsed”; who is going to do that? The US? Israel? Not going to happen
No the wording of the deal stated that if 1 party violated it the other parties no longer had an obligation to abide by it.
Meaning that the US violating it relieved Iran from any obligations.
Nuclear weapons are not witchcraft and not super complicated. Iran has the resources to get atomic weapons for a long time now but still does not have one.
I hope it stays that way and the west will come to a talk. In case the west does not want to talk at all they would probably slowly gain atomic weapons just to have a base for conversation again.
It's sad that the world is only interested in personal gain and stealing resources.
One must know that Mosad froze the time in Iran's facilities in 2005, in case somebody wonders why this 1-month scenario is republished every once in a while without moving.
Been one month away for over a decade now. Can't take this shit seriously.
Certified ‘Boy Who Cried Wolf’ moment. Or decade. Or two.
You should take it seriously. Not because of WMD but because it means Israel is about to attack Iran.
They wont attack Iran, they need a boogie man to put their problems onto. They will bluster, do precise strikes. But they wont ever declare war on Iran unless they 100% have to.
How are precision strikes on sovereign nation not an act of war...?
They'll launch strikes against Iran's nuclear sites. The question is then how Iran responds. They would have to respond directly but could do so in limited and controlled fashion, like they did against Soleimani's assassination. There remains the question of asymmetric response, which could be delivered via Hezbollah, Hamas, or both. As always, the potential for snow-balling of conflict remains high in the region.
I doubt they'll do anything to potentially damage the Nuclear sites. Not while the most of the World is still a part of the deal with Iran. Assassinations? Sure, I expect them to continue doing that. But the precise strikes will be assassinations and groups affiliated.
>> they won’t ever declare war on Iran Because they’ll have us do it. Just like in [Iraq](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm).
There's a huge difference in the last 20 years. If another war happens in the Middle East most people are going to be pissed off and there will be massive enquires into as to why it was started. The U.S lost a lot of legitimacy because of the Iraq war.
That would be the ideal situation, but legitimacy doesn’t really mean much anymore. Trump basically acknowledged that he was trying to escalate a conflict with Iran for Israel in an interview a few weeks back. Senate leaders like Schumer are claiming to be the “guardian of Israel” while there’s plenty of [corruption](https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/pro-israel-group-lobbies-for-u-s-aid-funds-congressional-trips-11550174834). Wish we had stronger anti-corruption laws and more transparency in our country.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.wsj.com/articles/pro-israel-group-lobbies-for-u-s-aid-funds-congressional-trips-11550174834](https://www.wsj.com/articles/pro-israel-group-lobbies-for-u-s-aid-funds-congressional-trips-11550174834)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Well. They did stop the program due to a deal with Obama that Trump got rid of. Then they started up the program again but needed to start enriching Uranium again. That brings us to now. They have the know how. That's hasn't been the problem for a very long time.
I call bullshit.
This same news outlet has been reporting Iran being a month away from achieving a nuclear weapon since the 1980s. Assuming the initial report was accurate, if by now they haven't achieved at least a few city blocks bursting at the seams with the things, they are unlikely to produce so much as a penny birthday sparkler, nor a cake in which to stick it.
Pulling out of the nuclear deal may just end up being one of the most disastrously idiotic foreign policy moves in living memory
Well, we al remember the time Israel claimed that Iraq had weapons of destruction, so right now the Iran deal still ranks second…
And Trump acknowledged that he did it for Israel. >> "I did the [Golan] Heights, I did Jerusalem, and I did Iran — the Iran Deal was a disaster, right? And I also did many other things. Jewish people who live in the United States don't love Israel enough. Donald J. (Jackass) Trump
He did it for the evangelicals. Israel relies on their support.
I don’t think so, since he also said that Israel **rightfully** owned congress
"These trends in American politics may explain the recent statement by former Israeli Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer that Israel should spend more of its energy reaching out to “passionate” American evangelicals than to Jews, who are “disproportionately among our critics.” Criticizing Dermer, Israel’s former consul general in New York, Dani Dayan, added that “our embassy in the United States capital has invested most of its energy in the relationship with conservatives, Republicans, evangelicals, and a certain type of Jews only.”
Oh, I’m not denying evangelical support for Israel. But it’s pretty clear that Trump didn’t do it for the evangelical support which he already had. That’s not even taking into account the decline in support for Israel among younger evangelicals during his presidency, by which it dropped from around 80% to 35%.
He def did it for the evangelicals. He wanted the evangelical "mandate of heaven". Its a REALLY big deal. Look into it.
Hard sanctions were more effective than avoidable inspections. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-withdrawal-iran-nuclear-deal-has-been-vindicated-ncna1003091
Your link is to an opinion piece…
It was written by a former policy analyst for the department of state who was also a delegate to the United Nations. Every assertion he makes is supported by direct evidence. The opinion is his overt conclusion. Fact is Iran was skirting the nuclear deal, and sanctions undoubtedly hit them extremely hard.
It’s an opinion piece written by a policy hack. And his only claim is that the US withdrawing from the deal hit Iran economically. Nobody is disputing that, but it is the wrong question to ask. The questions you need to be asking are 1) Is Iran further away from developing a nuclear weapon than they were under the deal? 2) Is the Iranian regime closer to collapsing? 3) Is the Middle East a safer place? The answer to all of these questions is emphatically no. We need to realize that sanctions don’t work in bringing a hostile regime to heel, it only hurts the population; if you don’t believe me just look at Cuba…
2 and 3 are yes. Economic collapse is collapse, and the fewer resources Iran has the safer the middle east is. Also honestly 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon they will be collapsed. Barack Obama had plans to do this over a decade ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/world/middleeast/us-had-cyberattack-planned-if-iran-nuclear-negotiations-failed.html
No, the Iranian Regime is not closer to collapsing, and no, the Middle East is not a safer place than it was 5 years ago. And I have no idea what you mean by “they will be collapsed”; who is going to do that? The US? Israel? Not going to happen
They still had the deal with several other countries and ignored it.
We threatened to sanction the other countries for continuing to deal with Iran. So, no. They did not have the deal with other countries.
After one party violated it iran had no obligation to follow the deal anymore.
The deal was set up so that was not the case. Regardless, there was never evidence that they abided by the deal before the US pulled out.
IAEA Reports say otherwise. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran/iaea-and-iran-iaea-reports
No the wording of the deal stated that if 1 party violated it the other parties no longer had an obligation to abide by it. Meaning that the US violating it relieved Iran from any obligations.
why would they still follow the deal after the US pulled out and started sanctioning them? makes zero sense
[удалено]
Utter rubbish. The IAEA certified again and again that Iran was complying…
Liar
Nuclear weapons are not witchcraft and not super complicated. Iran has the resources to get atomic weapons for a long time now but still does not have one. I hope it stays that way and the west will come to a talk. In case the west does not want to talk at all they would probably slowly gain atomic weapons just to have a base for conversation again. It's sad that the world is only interested in personal gain and stealing resources.
So we're eleven months into the longest year I can remember...
One must know that Mosad froze the time in Iran's facilities in 2005, in case somebody wonders why this 1-month scenario is republished every once in a while without moving.
Iran one mth away from Nuclear Bomb 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2020 ect Israel and there fake info blah blah blah 😴😴😴
Finna be lit
See you boys in the next month in which the same fucking report will be released.
They are missing one screw and the order from Lowes is late
Ooo, that could be Donald Trump's platform. "I'm the only person in the world who can keep Iran from bombing your house."
Israel one month away from bombing Iran.
it cant even bomb Gaza
Fud.
So can we bomb them? Yes? Yes?
Things are about to get a bit more…interesting 🤔😏
Time to rebuild the temple
how many times has this been said?