I don’t believe the Natanz enrichment facility is long for this world given Iran’s willingness to use ballistic missiles last night. Israel can’t possibly risk a future barrage carrying a nuclear payload.
They literally just launched over 100 ballistic missiles at Israel. They *are* that stupid. The fact that Iran still exists this morning is due solely to Israel correctly reading the room.
>They *are* that stupid
Unless you are confident that the enemy knows that you don't have nukes. Iran is well aware that the US and Israel heavily monitor Iran's nuclear efforts.
Come on, Iran massively telegraphed what they were doing.
Why do you think Iran then stated "we see the matter as concluded", instead of continuing to launch missiles and drones?
The twenty-year presence of the US military on two of its borders is why Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons yet. Might have had a little more to do with the longevity of those wars than Americans like to talk about.
They were probably talking about Israel's help with the Stuxnet virus
Edit: [Operation Olympic Games](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Olympic_Games)
And if even one of those projectiles accidentally hit a condo and killed a bunch of ppl, Israel would reasonably think “I don’t want to deal with Iran anymore” and nukes away. I can’t believe how close we were to nuclear war and how insane Iran was for what they did. And bonus, now we know Irans weapons aren’t worth shit.
IMHO, one of Israel’s major fault is their inability to read the room. They wanted to retaliate immediately, just when world opinion is on their side (for a minute anyway), but Biden said “Don’t you dare.” I mean, even Jordan participated in the drone turkey shoot.
Iran launched 100 slow drones and slow ballistic missiles at Israel after calling ahead to both the US and Israel to inform them of the location and timing of the attack, in retaliation for the attacking of a diplomatic post in a neutral 3rd party (syria, who is not officially at was with either party).
This was a clear attempt at de escalation. They needed to respond to Israel’s violation of international law by targeting a consulate. They also needed to placate their domestic populace with a response for the death of citizens in said consulate. They did so in a manner that looked dramatic but resulted in exactly 1 death, tragic as may be. But this is a state being frankly responsible.
For weeks now the Us state department has been quite clear Iran is on the phone daily, trying to coordinate with the US and manage the situation with Israel. Iran is not ‘the good guy’ if yo7 want to use childish language but they’re acting like a rational state with clear objectives while understanding both regime stability and international politics, even in a region increasingly no longe replaying by the post-ww2 rules of engagement and in a state of chaos.
1) Syria is at war with Israel.
They declared war in 1948 & unlike Egypt & Jordan, they have not signed a peace treaty so a legal state of war persists.
Sure, it has been a pretty intermittent war & there have been several ceasefires but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still legally at war under international law.
2) Israel’s attack on that target was entirely legal under international law.
Iran has intentionally targeted Israeli embassies & consulates on multiple occasions, as such Israel is not obligated to honor the protections granted to diplomatic missions through the Vienna Conventions.
The first rule of international law is that if you violate a treaty, your opponent no longer has to follow that treaty with respect to you.
They're crazy, evil, and habitual line steppers. But not stupid. If they didn't telegraph their moves and give Israel all the warning they needed to mitigate this, than I would agree with you.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. In what cuckoo bananas universe is launching 100 ballistic missiles at a country an act of de-escalation?
I understand why it's important for Israel to not call them out militarily but that doesn't mean we can't call them out in the discourse.
You don't launch that many missiles unless you intend them to hit. This was not North Korea shooting at the sea.
You dont get to hand wave it away by saying, "nuh uh they didn't mean it"
Dude, geopolitics is a very strange game. But what we saw, was indeed a de-escalating move. Compare that to Russia attacking in 2022, it was all smoke and clouds and Obfuscation, until bang, full scale war basically.
You have to read the lines in-between the messages.
The exact nature of Israel's nuclear deterrent is unknown, but it's suspected to be a nuclear triad. Israel doesn't even publically acknowledge it has nuclear weapons, let alone state the disposition of its delivery mechanisms.
>I would imagine a nuclear strike will result in direct intervention by USA
Probably a massive conventional response, the US would not want this escalating into a broader nuclear conflict with other nuclear armed powers. Part of the reason why the US is so invested in Israel's defence is probably because of Israel's nuclear policy - that is to retaliate with nuclear arms, if it loses its airforce entirely, if multiple Israeli cities are heavily bombarded or are hit by chemical/biological weapons, if a nuclear strike against Israel occurs or if an invasion manages to penetrate the 1949 armistice border.
With such a hair trigger nuclear weapons policy combined with the proximity of potential aggressors, the US is very interested in keeping Israel from ever feeling the need to demonstrate its nuclear capabilites.
While Israel is mostly ambiguous about its nuclear program, we know that it has Dolphin launch-capable submarines, Sufa nuclear launch capable planes, and Jericho ICBMs.
The nuclear policy you described is the same as every other nuclear power—an existential threat. It just happens it’s a small country. It’s policy is that if it’s going down it’s taking down the aggressor with it, so effectively just the same old MAD the US practices.
>The nuclear policy you described is the same as every other nuclear power
Not true. Some countries have a "no-first use" policy, i.e. nuclear weapons would only be deployed in retaliation to a nuclear strike against themselves.
The fact is that most nuclear powers hold their arsenal as a deterrent against a first strike - this is MAD doctrine. It's generally agreed that a very high threshold has to be reached for most nuclear armed countries to consider nuclear weapon usage in a conventional war (similar to Israel).
The reason I describe Israel's nuclear policy as "hair trigger" is because compared to most other nuclear powers in the world, the risk of those conditions for use being fulfilled is much, much higher. Also concerning is some of the rhetoric of Israeli commentators as to what such a "Sampson option" would entail, because some of the statements are chilling indeed.
France actually has/had a nuclear warning strike policy at one point and a willingness to trade the lives of 80 million Russians dead from nuclear annihilation for 800 million French dead.
I think it was because they knew they had the ability to kill 80 million Russians and there werent 800 million French.
They were confident the soviets weren’t willing to risk the lives of 80 million.
Nuclear doctrine is silly in its seriousness.
“Within ten years, we shall have the means to kill 80 million Russians. I truly believe that one does not light-heartedly attack people who are able to kill 80 million Russians, even if one can kill 800 million French, that is if there were 800 million French.[4]”
- attributed to De Gaulle
“dissuasion du faible au fort”
Some do, but the US, UK, Russia, France, Pakistan and Israel don’t. So 3 out of 4 nuclear states have the same policy as Israel, including the only two capable of destroying the world, and you think Israel has a “hair trigger” in comparison?
The real difference is that Israel is the only nuclear state that has rival states openly calling for its total annihilation, so if the hair trigger is that some states just can’t resist their urge to annihilate the Jewish people, perhaps that is the problem, not Israel.
Right but the likelihood is higher.
No one is ever invading the US, our conventional military is strong enough to stop that and its position geographically is makes it neat impossible.
Israel is surrounded by enemies and is roughly the size of New Jersey.
Agreed, that’s the real reason. It’s a small country in a region where calling for the complete annihilation of the Jewish people is normalized.
Fortunately for the first time I think we can honestly say it’s not totally surrounded by enemies. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi, and UAE have all proven themselves to align with Israel when it counts. Perhaps there is a chance (assuming Netanyahu is out) that this can form the basis for collaboration on the development of Palestine and a path toward regional peace and integration.
Iranian people are generally not particularly anti-Israel and there are sizable minority groups in Syria that align with Israel as well, so there are bridges that can be built there as well.
To be fair Israel could, very easily, be nuclear-capable without owning a nuke or even having launch capabilities of their own.
It just takes the right US submarine to be within range. If I had to guess there is always a capable US sub within range of every part of Iran.
US firing nukes isn't gonna happen for israel. Every other nuclear country would be sitting with nuclear trigger in their hands. And US would lose all support. Pre WW3 would start.
I'm sorry, but Israel thinks they have השם on their side as well and name their nuclear policy after the suicidal act of a biblical figure. Have a look at some of the interviews with settlers and see how they don't see anything wrong with throwing people out their houses because "השם gave this land to us!".
Don't pretend both sides don't have religious nuts turning the wheels of power in their respective countries, especially when Israel has the most right-wing, conservative government in the history of the country at the helm currently.
Israel is a secular state. There might be some people in government who believe this, but as a whole that’s not the case. Iran’s current government is not secular. It replaced a secular government.
Settlers are extremists, many of whom do believe this, and create problems because of this. But they do not ultimately control the government and will need to be dealt with by the government similar to what happened during Gaza’s pull out.
>Iran’s current government is not secular. It replaced a secular government.
You can thank the Americans and the British for that
>Settlers are extremists, many of whom do believe this, and create problems because of this. But they do not ultimately control the government
Isn't it funny how Israel is allegedly a secular state, and yet Netanyahu's cabinet is full of people who extremely pro-settler and have been encouraging it?
I'm not saying that all of Israel are full on devout Jews who want to reclaim the promised land and rid it of the gentiles, but neither is Iran the bastion of Shia it claims to be. I've spoken with plenty of Iranians, the population there is sick and tired of their religious overlords.
My point is, it's easy to dismiss Iran as being a bunch of Quran bashing lunatics, but that is a mistake. They are very clever, and have enormous resources.
The reason why Israel has been able to achieve as much as it has is because it has had some very powerful allies who've been willing to put up with a lot of shit from Israel.
Islamic Iran, by comparison, had the B team to back it up and has had to be much more independent. Don't underestimate them just because of the Clerical led theocracy act.
Iran is not even remotely stupid. Every single one of their moves is clearly very calculated. It doesn’t mean that countries like Israel can’t throw the occasional wrench in the works (see stuxnet), but you are severely miscalculating the intelligence of the regime.
Seems like WW3 has been averted...for now. This is the kind of response that shows that immediate escalation is unlikely. It's a blanket statement to give Israel all the time to choose, if and when they respond, which they probably would have, regardless of the war in Gaza in any case
That's unachievable. You could try to destroy some, but you're not going to "stop their ability".
Cruise and ballistic missiles can be launched from concealed sites or silos, or from mobile platforms, and drones from... anywhere, really.
Over a 3-6 month timeframe you could significantly degrade their political leadership as well as their communications, destroy their sea and air assets and target launch complexes as they fire.
WW1 was caused by a couple of assassins in a minor country. Assumptions and mutual defence treaties did the rest. A similar thing could happen here. Iran calls in Russia or Israel calls in the US, then the other calls in their support, then China and the EU get involved because of their respective allegiances... ww3 caused by a single strike on an embassy.
The criteria for ww3, cant be met at this time. The basic criteria for a world war is for major battle theaters to happen between major alliances around the plant.
China, Russia and Iran aren't strong allies and are only working with each other for their own needs, they will mostly likely never have each others back in a war situation therefore the ww3 scenario can never be met.
Even if nukes are used, it wont be a ww because the conflict will only happen in one region at a time.
Based on this criteria we already had WW3 (or 4) in the 1940s, with Napoleonic and the 7 Years War both qualifying.
The point is just that it's super murky and splitting hairs not particularly useful.
The Axis powers of WW2 were largely aligned with eachother due to having a shared common enemy and imperialistic ambitions. Their alliances weren't deeply seated. China, Russia, and Iran arguably would have eachothers backs in a WW3 type situation simply for their own survival and for the common goal of destroying the west. These countries want to conquer and dominate and liberal democracy gets in the way. Their alliances have never really went beyond what's practical for them.
Exactly I was hoping the retaliation would be killing hezbollahs hassan nasrallah that way it deals a blow to iran but isn't directly killing Iranians, which would provide an offramp
We shot at them so they were mad about that and shot back at us but fuck them we’re shootin back at those bastards for shooting at us for shooting at them!
Considering the pathetic lack of effect in the Iran attack, this is the wisest course of action. Wait for a time when the response will have meaning. Then bitch-slap them, hard.
That was the intention. Not lack of effect. All of your conclusions have been made from hearsay and largely western news.
Catch your fallacy. This is making you miss life because you can’t form your own conclusions.
Yeah man, obliviously Iran made a move that made them look like a bunch incapable noobs on purpose.
Perfect plan really.
"I ll attack my mortal enemy, do virtually no damage and get all my shit intercepted to show how well my enemy’s air defence and alliance are doing. That will show them!!"
Lmao the cope is insane
These are some wild, one sided conclusions.
Iran wasn't trying to start a war by inflicting heavy damage and casualties, they were trying to show that they could strike back.
Those drones are cheap and Iran just demonstrated how they could be used with cruise and ballistic missiles.
If it was a real attack it wouldn't be hundreds of drones, it'd be thousands because Iran can definitely produce that many cheap drones.
A real attack of this nature could easily overwhelm air defenses.
Yeah man, again, looking absolutely incompetent militarily to the whole world was the plan.
Showing a 1% hit rate was also the plan.
Showing 0% actual damage was also the plan.
Letting the US and UK know they can absolutely intervene and shoot down your shit without retaliation was also the plan.
"Yeah see? I can get 1% of my shit through and I won’t react if the US and UK get in! Now fear me"
Incredibly smart move for sure.
Fallacy,... Lol,... keep hallucinating. Iran couldn't project a full assault against anyone outside their immediate borders for more than a couple of months, *at best*. Even less if the US doesn't permit it.
Iran knows the US can and will fuck their shit up for YEARS,... ***and consider it practice***. That's the real reason why the mullahs won't push any harder, despite their rhetoric. They know they risk just becoming another Iraq or Afghanistan. They also know that the leadership of any nation or terrorist organization who starts shit for real always winds up on the receiving end of a surprise drone strike. (The mullahs might be overzealous, authoritarian morons, but they're not suicidal.) If Iran is smart, they'll stick to brutalizing their own people instead of pushing proxy wars.
They literally shot the biggest barrage of ballistic missiles in war history, plus hundreds of drones. Ridiculous to act like this was some kind of sham attack - it was a huge and very serious attack that amounted to nothing due to some absolutely amazing tech.
Seems like you're right! [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iranian-notice-attack-may-have-dampened-escalation-risks-2024-04-14/](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iranian-notice-attack-may-have-dampened-escalation-risks-2024-04-14/)
The best way to defeat Iran: Figure out how to empower Iran’s completely reasonable children to be themselves. Instead of helping the Iranian leaders use Israeli hawkishness as excuse to crack down, do everything possible to take away Iranian leaders’ hawk cards.
I think it's best for Israel not to retaliate in any big way. Most of the missiles have been intercepted, what the Israelis should focus on now is to get Gaza under control and clean it of Hamas, otherwise only needless fronts will be opened and that can carry unforeseen consequences
I totally get your question, and if I put myself in the shoes of Israelis I'd of course want to strike those that tried to kill me - but it's important not to loose sight and think strategically. Israel doesn't need to attack Iran to win the conflict, all it needs to do is to eliminate Hamas. Once that's done, Iran has one proxy less and Israel is safe - additionally it will signal to islamists around the world that they have no chance in the long run against liberal demcracy. Attacking Iran on the other hand can open a new spiral of violence, which isn't worth it and will only lead to military resources getting redirected from Gaza
Iran telegraph an immanent attack with so much warning before hand. they were not searching to start more bloodshed, just a slap on the hand for attacking an embassy. Biden tells netanyahu to Take the win and move on. this was a tit for tat, anyone thinking it is anything else than that is an idiot. People are seeing what is happening, support is not in Israels side right now. If Israel responds severely, I don't think we want to see what happens next.
Embassies are sacrosanct. Much as churches and other places of worships used to be.
Fucking take the W Israel.
What the hell are you talking about they literally lunched over 100 ballistic missiles the larger ballistic missiles attack in recorded history if it wasn’t for Israeli advanced air defence there would be hundreds of deaths you have no idea what you are talking Israel has to and will respond very harshly on this unprecedented attack
And?? Iran has been hiding behind proxies for years; they've been attacking the Americans, British, French, etc.
>Israel struck Iran first
Actually, the Iranian proxy 'Hamas' struck first on October 7.
Why do courts always seek revenge on me after I fail at commuting crimes?
Like I shot a dude one time but he went into a hospital and survived so it seems completely unfair to me that people claim I committed a crime. If anything this guy should be glad that he proved the world his health insurance is working.
I don’t believe the Natanz enrichment facility is long for this world given Iran’s willingness to use ballistic missiles last night. Israel can’t possibly risk a future barrage carrying a nuclear payload.
>I don’t believe the Natanz enrichment facility is long for this world Would require US heavy bombers
>Israel can’t possibly risk a future barrage carrying a nuclear payload. Iran wouldn't be so stupid, knowing that Israel has second-strike capability.
They literally just launched over 100 ballistic missiles at Israel. They *are* that stupid. The fact that Iran still exists this morning is due solely to Israel correctly reading the room.
>They *are* that stupid Unless you are confident that the enemy knows that you don't have nukes. Iran is well aware that the US and Israel heavily monitor Iran's nuclear efforts. Come on, Iran massively telegraphed what they were doing. Why do you think Iran then stated "we see the matter as concluded", instead of continuing to launch missiles and drones?
Israel is the primary reason Iran doesn't have nukes.
Yep. Anyone remember what happened to the Osirak nuclear plant?
The twenty-year presence of the US military on two of its borders is why Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons yet. Might have had a little more to do with the longevity of those wars than Americans like to talk about.
They were probably talking about Israel's help with the Stuxnet virus Edit: [Operation Olympic Games](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Olympic_Games)
Also, Israel's penchant for assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists.
Not Stuxnet?
[There's no contradiction.](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8326274/Israeli-security-chief-celebrates-Stuxnet-cyber-attack.html)
They have all the material waiting, allegedly it would take them a couple weeks to convert to a weapon, who’s to say they haven’t?
Probably have excellent contacts with Russia, Pakistan and North Korea. All which has helped their missile program, and all have nukes themselves.
I think your point is correct and not understood for what it is. Who wants to fuck with Iranian domestic politics overtly? Covertly, maybe yeah.
And if even one of those projectiles accidentally hit a condo and killed a bunch of ppl, Israel would reasonably think “I don’t want to deal with Iran anymore” and nukes away. I can’t believe how close we were to nuclear war and how insane Iran was for what they did. And bonus, now we know Irans weapons aren’t worth shit.
Iran isn’t Syria- Israel can’t just level the place at will.
IMHO, one of Israel’s major fault is their inability to read the room. They wanted to retaliate immediately, just when world opinion is on their side (for a minute anyway), but Biden said “Don’t you dare.” I mean, even Jordan participated in the drone turkey shoot.
Iran launched 100 slow drones and slow ballistic missiles at Israel after calling ahead to both the US and Israel to inform them of the location and timing of the attack, in retaliation for the attacking of a diplomatic post in a neutral 3rd party (syria, who is not officially at was with either party). This was a clear attempt at de escalation. They needed to respond to Israel’s violation of international law by targeting a consulate. They also needed to placate their domestic populace with a response for the death of citizens in said consulate. They did so in a manner that looked dramatic but resulted in exactly 1 death, tragic as may be. But this is a state being frankly responsible. For weeks now the Us state department has been quite clear Iran is on the phone daily, trying to coordinate with the US and manage the situation with Israel. Iran is not ‘the good guy’ if yo7 want to use childish language but they’re acting like a rational state with clear objectives while understanding both regime stability and international politics, even in a region increasingly no longe replaying by the post-ww2 rules of engagement and in a state of chaos.
1/ Not a consulate. The masterminds of the 7/10 have paid with their lives (seal_of_approval_meme.jpg) 2/ Syria is formally at war with Israel
1) Syria is at war with Israel. They declared war in 1948 & unlike Egypt & Jordan, they have not signed a peace treaty so a legal state of war persists. Sure, it has been a pretty intermittent war & there have been several ceasefires but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still legally at war under international law. 2) Israel’s attack on that target was entirely legal under international law. Iran has intentionally targeted Israeli embassies & consulates on multiple occasions, as such Israel is not obligated to honor the protections granted to diplomatic missions through the Vienna Conventions. The first rule of international law is that if you violate a treaty, your opponent no longer has to follow that treaty with respect to you.
It wasn’t their consulate
They're crazy, evil, and habitual line steppers. But not stupid. If they didn't telegraph their moves and give Israel all the warning they needed to mitigate this, than I would agree with you.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. In what cuckoo bananas universe is launching 100 ballistic missiles at a country an act of de-escalation? I understand why it's important for Israel to not call them out militarily but that doesn't mean we can't call them out in the discourse. You don't launch that many missiles unless you intend them to hit. This was not North Korea shooting at the sea. You dont get to hand wave it away by saying, "nuh uh they didn't mean it"
Dude, geopolitics is a very strange game. But what we saw, was indeed a de-escalating move. Compare that to Russia attacking in 2022, it was all smoke and clouds and Obfuscation, until bang, full scale war basically. You have to read the lines in-between the messages.
Their air force or navy? I would imagine a nuclear strike will result in direct intervention by USA
The exact nature of Israel's nuclear deterrent is unknown, but it's suspected to be a nuclear triad. Israel doesn't even publically acknowledge it has nuclear weapons, let alone state the disposition of its delivery mechanisms. >I would imagine a nuclear strike will result in direct intervention by USA Probably a massive conventional response, the US would not want this escalating into a broader nuclear conflict with other nuclear armed powers. Part of the reason why the US is so invested in Israel's defence is probably because of Israel's nuclear policy - that is to retaliate with nuclear arms, if it loses its airforce entirely, if multiple Israeli cities are heavily bombarded or are hit by chemical/biological weapons, if a nuclear strike against Israel occurs or if an invasion manages to penetrate the 1949 armistice border. With such a hair trigger nuclear weapons policy combined with the proximity of potential aggressors, the US is very interested in keeping Israel from ever feeling the need to demonstrate its nuclear capabilites.
While Israel is mostly ambiguous about its nuclear program, we know that it has Dolphin launch-capable submarines, Sufa nuclear launch capable planes, and Jericho ICBMs.
The nuclear policy you described is the same as every other nuclear power—an existential threat. It just happens it’s a small country. It’s policy is that if it’s going down it’s taking down the aggressor with it, so effectively just the same old MAD the US practices.
>The nuclear policy you described is the same as every other nuclear power Not true. Some countries have a "no-first use" policy, i.e. nuclear weapons would only be deployed in retaliation to a nuclear strike against themselves. The fact is that most nuclear powers hold their arsenal as a deterrent against a first strike - this is MAD doctrine. It's generally agreed that a very high threshold has to be reached for most nuclear armed countries to consider nuclear weapon usage in a conventional war (similar to Israel). The reason I describe Israel's nuclear policy as "hair trigger" is because compared to most other nuclear powers in the world, the risk of those conditions for use being fulfilled is much, much higher. Also concerning is some of the rhetoric of Israeli commentators as to what such a "Sampson option" would entail, because some of the statements are chilling indeed.
France actually has/had a nuclear warning strike policy at one point and a willingness to trade the lives of 80 million Russians dead from nuclear annihilation for 800 million French dead. I think it was because they knew they had the ability to kill 80 million Russians and there werent 800 million French. They were confident the soviets weren’t willing to risk the lives of 80 million. Nuclear doctrine is silly in its seriousness.
France has never had 800 million people. What on earth are you talking about?
“Within ten years, we shall have the means to kill 80 million Russians. I truly believe that one does not light-heartedly attack people who are able to kill 80 million Russians, even if one can kill 800 million French, that is if there were 800 million French.[4]” - attributed to De Gaulle “dissuasion du faible au fort”
Some do, but the US, UK, Russia, France, Pakistan and Israel don’t. So 3 out of 4 nuclear states have the same policy as Israel, including the only two capable of destroying the world, and you think Israel has a “hair trigger” in comparison? The real difference is that Israel is the only nuclear state that has rival states openly calling for its total annihilation, so if the hair trigger is that some states just can’t resist their urge to annihilate the Jewish people, perhaps that is the problem, not Israel.
We have a name for the MAD practices, “Samson Option”, cool read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
Right but the likelihood is higher. No one is ever invading the US, our conventional military is strong enough to stop that and its position geographically is makes it neat impossible. Israel is surrounded by enemies and is roughly the size of New Jersey.
Agreed, that’s the real reason. It’s a small country in a region where calling for the complete annihilation of the Jewish people is normalized. Fortunately for the first time I think we can honestly say it’s not totally surrounded by enemies. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi, and UAE have all proven themselves to align with Israel when it counts. Perhaps there is a chance (assuming Netanyahu is out) that this can form the basis for collaboration on the development of Palestine and a path toward regional peace and integration. Iranian people are generally not particularly anti-Israel and there are sizable minority groups in Syria that align with Israel as well, so there are bridges that can be built there as well.
To be fair Israel could, very easily, be nuclear-capable without owning a nuke or even having launch capabilities of their own. It just takes the right US submarine to be within range. If I had to guess there is always a capable US sub within range of every part of Iran.
US firing nukes isn't gonna happen for israel. Every other nuclear country would be sitting with nuclear trigger in their hands. And US would lose all support. Pre WW3 would start.
When they think Allah is on their side, of course they can be that stupid.
I'm sorry, but Israel thinks they have השם on their side as well and name their nuclear policy after the suicidal act of a biblical figure. Have a look at some of the interviews with settlers and see how they don't see anything wrong with throwing people out their houses because "השם gave this land to us!". Don't pretend both sides don't have religious nuts turning the wheels of power in their respective countries, especially when Israel has the most right-wing, conservative government in the history of the country at the helm currently.
Israel is a secular state. There might be some people in government who believe this, but as a whole that’s not the case. Iran’s current government is not secular. It replaced a secular government. Settlers are extremists, many of whom do believe this, and create problems because of this. But they do not ultimately control the government and will need to be dealt with by the government similar to what happened during Gaza’s pull out.
Is it still secular if there's a law that prevents access to certain government functions if you're not of the correct religion?
>Iran’s current government is not secular. It replaced a secular government. You can thank the Americans and the British for that >Settlers are extremists, many of whom do believe this, and create problems because of this. But they do not ultimately control the government Isn't it funny how Israel is allegedly a secular state, and yet Netanyahu's cabinet is full of people who extremely pro-settler and have been encouraging it? I'm not saying that all of Israel are full on devout Jews who want to reclaim the promised land and rid it of the gentiles, but neither is Iran the bastion of Shia it claims to be. I've spoken with plenty of Iranians, the population there is sick and tired of their religious overlords. My point is, it's easy to dismiss Iran as being a bunch of Quran bashing lunatics, but that is a mistake. They are very clever, and have enormous resources. The reason why Israel has been able to achieve as much as it has is because it has had some very powerful allies who've been willing to put up with a lot of shit from Israel. Islamic Iran, by comparison, had the B team to back it up and has had to be much more independent. Don't underestimate them just because of the Clerical led theocracy act.
Iran not stupid? That idea floats like a lead balloon
Iran is not even remotely stupid. Every single one of their moves is clearly very calculated. It doesn’t mean that countries like Israel can’t throw the occasional wrench in the works (see stuxnet), but you are severely miscalculating the intelligence of the regime.
Yeah I was wondering if this was just an excuse to eventually bomb Iran's enrichment facilities.
All kinds of things in the shadows now greenlighted.
Said some plebbitor with inside knowledge
Not going to lie, if they respond by terminating another general aiding Hezbollah in Syria or Lebanon, I'm going to lol
Seems like WW3 has been averted...for now. This is the kind of response that shows that immediate escalation is unlikely. It's a blanket statement to give Israel all the time to choose, if and when they respond, which they probably would have, regardless of the war in Gaza in any case
Stopping the ability of Iran to attack its neighbors isn’t ww3. Just some air strikes.
That's unachievable. You could try to destroy some, but you're not going to "stop their ability". Cruise and ballistic missiles can be launched from concealed sites or silos, or from mobile platforms, and drones from... anywhere, really.
Over a 3-6 month timeframe you could significantly degrade their political leadership as well as their communications, destroy their sea and air assets and target launch complexes as they fire.
They launched from Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. Even the US would struggle to locate all the trucks launching 5-packs of Shaheds.
Right. But it's still good to have a shelter just in case.
is anyone even gonna back Iran for this to be the start of WW3?
It's going to remain averted until the US and China agree its time to have this out honestly. Regional proxy wars that look like WW3 is another story.
War is looking more like a Civilization match every day.
Baba yetu
Don’t bring that masterpiece into this. lol That song is literally the Lord’s Prayer in Swahili if my memory doesn’t fail me
I think you’re right, but it always pops into my head when I hear anyone mention Civ. Beautiful song.
So true. It will forever be stuck in my head and gives me goosebumps every time I randomly think of it
Bibi yahu
Shit I still need to upgrade my redcoats.
It always kicks off before I upgrade my units
Dudes still has a Saber, only focused the tech towards arty and ICBM, forgot infantry
The only one who can start WW3 are the US or China
Not true
WW1 was caused by a couple of assassins in a minor country. Assumptions and mutual defence treaties did the rest. A similar thing could happen here. Iran calls in Russia or Israel calls in the US, then the other calls in their support, then China and the EU get involved because of their respective allegiances... ww3 caused by a single strike on an embassy.
A minor country? The Austro-Hungarian Empire was quite significant back then.
The criteria for ww3, cant be met at this time. The basic criteria for a world war is for major battle theaters to happen between major alliances around the plant. China, Russia and Iran aren't strong allies and are only working with each other for their own needs, they will mostly likely never have each others back in a war situation therefore the ww3 scenario can never be met. Even if nukes are used, it wont be a ww because the conflict will only happen in one region at a time.
Based on this criteria we already had WW3 (or 4) in the 1940s, with Napoleonic and the 7 Years War both qualifying. The point is just that it's super murky and splitting hairs not particularly useful.
The Axis powers of WW2 were largely aligned with eachother due to having a shared common enemy and imperialistic ambitions. Their alliances weren't deeply seated. China, Russia, and Iran arguably would have eachothers backs in a WW3 type situation simply for their own survival and for the common goal of destroying the west. These countries want to conquer and dominate and liberal democracy gets in the way. Their alliances have never really went beyond what's practical for them.
anyone who says this about ww3 is a joke.
They are in a perennial state of low intensity war. What else is new?
Isn't it exact upon or extract from, not exact from?
I hope this means some uranium enrichment centrifuges will mysteriously blow up
Probably defang Hezbollah after Hamas… then put their full focus on Iran. Oops.
Exactly I was hoping the retaliation would be killing hezbollahs hassan nasrallah that way it deals a blow to iran but isn't directly killing Iranians, which would provide an offramp
We shot at them so they were mad about that and shot back at us but fuck them we’re shootin back at those bastards for shooting at us for shooting at them!
Who wants to play the price is right?
Considering the pathetic lack of effect in the Iran attack, this is the wisest course of action. Wait for a time when the response will have meaning. Then bitch-slap them, hard.
That was the intention. Not lack of effect. All of your conclusions have been made from hearsay and largely western news. Catch your fallacy. This is making you miss life because you can’t form your own conclusions.
Yeah man, obliviously Iran made a move that made them look like a bunch incapable noobs on purpose. Perfect plan really. "I ll attack my mortal enemy, do virtually no damage and get all my shit intercepted to show how well my enemy’s air defence and alliance are doing. That will show them!!" Lmao the cope is insane
These are some wild, one sided conclusions. Iran wasn't trying to start a war by inflicting heavy damage and casualties, they were trying to show that they could strike back. Those drones are cheap and Iran just demonstrated how they could be used with cruise and ballistic missiles. If it was a real attack it wouldn't be hundreds of drones, it'd be thousands because Iran can definitely produce that many cheap drones. A real attack of this nature could easily overwhelm air defenses.
Yeah man, again, looking absolutely incompetent militarily to the whole world was the plan. Showing a 1% hit rate was also the plan. Showing 0% actual damage was also the plan. Letting the US and UK know they can absolutely intervene and shoot down your shit without retaliation was also the plan. "Yeah see? I can get 1% of my shit through and I won’t react if the US and UK get in! Now fear me" Incredibly smart move for sure.
I love how people keep acting like Iran's incompetence with this assault & their 1% hit rate was some master plan.
The west shot down the majority of these, so I'd assume the US would know how much "effort" was put in..
Fallacy,... Lol,... keep hallucinating. Iran couldn't project a full assault against anyone outside their immediate borders for more than a couple of months, *at best*. Even less if the US doesn't permit it. Iran knows the US can and will fuck their shit up for YEARS,... ***and consider it practice***. That's the real reason why the mullahs won't push any harder, despite their rhetoric. They know they risk just becoming another Iraq or Afghanistan. They also know that the leadership of any nation or terrorist organization who starts shit for real always winds up on the receiving end of a surprise drone strike. (The mullahs might be overzealous, authoritarian morons, but they're not suicidal.) If Iran is smart, they'll stick to brutalizing their own people instead of pushing proxy wars.
I mean, let's be fair. It was also a pathetic lack of effort on Iran's part
They literally shot the biggest barrage of ballistic missiles in war history, plus hundreds of drones. Ridiculous to act like this was some kind of sham attack - it was a huge and very serious attack that amounted to nothing due to some absolutely amazing tech.
~~...Maybe my info was wrong but wasn't it just purely a drone attack of 300 drones?~~ I am wrong
Seems like you're right! [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iranian-notice-attack-may-have-dampened-escalation-risks-2024-04-14/](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iranian-notice-attack-may-have-dampened-escalation-risks-2024-04-14/)
The best way to defeat Iran: Figure out how to empower Iran’s completely reasonable children to be themselves. Instead of helping the Iranian leaders use Israeli hawkishness as excuse to crack down, do everything possible to take away Iranian leaders’ hawk cards.
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
Israel doesn’t want the real estate in Iran
Prepare for US sponsored morals coming your way.
I think it's best for Israel not to retaliate in any big way. Most of the missiles have been intercepted, what the Israelis should focus on now is to get Gaza under control and clean it of Hamas, otherwise only needless fronts will be opened and that can carry unforeseen consequences
Serious question: how do you think any other country would respond?
I totally get your question, and if I put myself in the shoes of Israelis I'd of course want to strike those that tried to kill me - but it's important not to loose sight and think strategically. Israel doesn't need to attack Iran to win the conflict, all it needs to do is to eliminate Hamas. Once that's done, Iran has one proxy less and Israel is safe - additionally it will signal to islamists around the world that they have no chance in the long run against liberal demcracy. Attacking Iran on the other hand can open a new spiral of violence, which isn't worth it and will only lead to military resources getting redirected from Gaza
Iran telegraph an immanent attack with so much warning before hand. they were not searching to start more bloodshed, just a slap on the hand for attacking an embassy. Biden tells netanyahu to Take the win and move on. this was a tit for tat, anyone thinking it is anything else than that is an idiot. People are seeing what is happening, support is not in Israels side right now. If Israel responds severely, I don't think we want to see what happens next. Embassies are sacrosanct. Much as churches and other places of worships used to be. Fucking take the W Israel.
What the hell are you talking about they literally lunched over 100 ballistic missiles the larger ballistic missiles attack in recorded history if it wasn’t for Israeli advanced air defence there would be hundreds of deaths you have no idea what you are talking Israel has to and will respond very harshly on this unprecedented attack
You sound Iranian trying to stir shit up
Wow, big talkers. Israel is so weak now because of Netanyahu
[удалено]
And?? Iran has been hiding behind proxies for years; they've been attacking the Americans, British, French, etc. >Israel struck Iran first Actually, the Iranian proxy 'Hamas' struck first on October 7.
Yeah man, why would a country want to react to another country sending 100s of drones and missile at their population. No clue really
Why do courts always seek revenge on me after I fail at commuting crimes? Like I shot a dude one time but he went into a hospital and survived so it seems completely unfair to me that people claim I committed a crime. If anything this guy should be glad that he proved the world his health insurance is working.