Languish.org

How likely is this to take place in the short to near term ?

What might be the likely extent of such conflict ?

What should it be called ? 




I think such a conflict is a serious possibility, maybe even probable. Because I think it would politically suit each country's leadership; it allow the Iranian leadership to distract the population away from the domestic political crisis, gives them the cover/excuse to crush all opposition and it could further strengthen its leading position in non-A.Q. radical islam.  Not to say there won't be significant downsides to a possibly unrestricted conflict. 

For Likud's Netanyahu it offers the chance to win/stage a high profile victory over the emerging strongman of 'Middle Eastern' countries, largely erasing the embarassment of the Lebanon war. At a stroke, the Obama administration has to fall in beside Israel and back it to hilt, talk about restraining Israeli settlement activity and establishing a permanent peace with the Palestinians gets push aside., if not forgotten about depending on how unsympathetic/terroristic of any palestinian reaction, be that Hamas, small terrorist groups or from an all-out conflict with Hizballah. 

I'd guess a significant factor in the determined, time-tabled response of the USA-UK-France to the 2nd Iranian nuclear program might be a clearly stated Israeli intention to attack Irans nuclear/missile facilities fairly soon, unless there is a definite negotiated solution to the problem.

I think it should be called the the Israel-Iran war, as we've already had the Iran-Iraq war making Iran-Israel too similar sounding.  Maybe if the conflict is limited it could be named after the major characteristic of the fighting, like the 'tanker war' or 'the the war of the cities' which we've already seen with regard to Iran.

I do not think it would really suit either country's political leadership because the disastrous consequences a defeat would create.  Israel would be putting its existance at stake, Iran's governing party would be risking everything.  I think both parties will avoid an actual war and things will continue business as usual.

Effectively zero.

Quote from: Valmy on September 25, 2009, 02:33:10 PM
Iran's governing party would be risking everything.

They may soon have nothing left to lose.

How would the war even work?  Israel sends some jet fighters far away, and in return Iran sends some nuclear missiles far away?

That depends..

If Israel just strikes Natanz and other Nuclear sites gets away clean then Iran can choose to either respond or not. How?

1) Hizbullah. Is Hizbullah going to be willing (political price within Lebanon etc.) to fight for Iran against Israel with Lebanon as a casualty?

2) Iraq. Is Iran willing to provoke a fight against the US as a response to an Israeli strike?

3) Oil. Is Iran willing to use it as a weapon like the Arabs did in 1973, can they?

4) War of the Cities. If the Iranians start lobbing ballistic missiles on Israel. How far are they willing to go before Netanyahu cries WMD and uses his own WMD. Israel is much more capable of destroying economic infrastructure than Iran.

There are alot of what-if's here.

But then again, how to declare victory? Well if Israel bombs Natanz et.al. damaging the facilities and killing some technical staff and gets a cease fire afterwards they can declare victory. But then again Iran can declare victory ala Saddam and declare survival to be victory.

Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2009, 02:45:30 PM
How would the war even work?  Israel sends some jet fighters far away, and in return Iran sends some nuclear missiles far away?

Iran doesn't have the bomb yet and Iran sure as hell don't have miniaturized warheads. Even if Iran has an untested device the only delivery mechanism they can use is Container Ship.

Quote from: Armyknife on September 25, 2009, 02:31:13 PM
How likely is this to take place in the short to near term ?

What might be the likely extent of such conflict ?

What should it be called ? 

1) 5%
2) Israelis bomb a couple installations. Iranians retaliate (or attempt to) with conventional missiles and Hezbollah proxy attacks.
3) The Crock of Shi'ite War

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2009, 03:17:16 PM

Quote from: Armyknife on September 25, 2009, 02:31:13 PM
How likely is this to take place in the short to near term ?

What might be the likely extent of such conflict ?

What should it be called ? 

1) 5%
2) Israelis bomb a couple installations. Iranians retaliate (or attempt to) with conventional missiles and Hezbollah proxy attacks.
3) The Crock of Shi'ite War

3) Heeb' of Shi'ite War?

Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2009, 02:45:30 PM
How would the war even work?  Israel sends some jet fighters far away, and in return Iran sends some nuclear missiles far away?

For Israel to send fighters across Iraq, they would at least need the tacit approval of the US. I don't see that happening. Iran may have conventional missles that can reach Israel, but no nuclear warheads to fit on a missle yet. So they could shoot missles at each other I guess. But that wouldn't make any side able to actually win, so I guess both sides aren't interested in war.

Quote from: Zanza on September 25, 2009, 04:23:51 PM

Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2009, 02:45:30 PM
How would the war even work?  Israel sends some jet fighters far away, and in return Iran sends some nuclear missiles far away?

For Israel to send fighters across Iraq, they would at least need the tacit approval of the US. I don't see that happening. Iran may have conventional missles that can reach Israel, but no nuclear warheads to fit on a missle yet. So they could shoot missles at each other I guess. But that wouldn't make any side able to actually win, so I guess both sides aren't interested in war.

Saudi has been suggested as a rout.

Quote from: Viking on September 25, 2009, 04:25:42 PM

Quote from: Zanza on September 25, 2009, 04:23:51 PM

Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2009, 02:45:30 PM
How would the war even work?  Israel sends some jet fighters far away, and in return Iran sends some nuclear missiles far away?

For Israel to send fighters across Iraq, they would at least need the tacit approval of the US. I don't see that happening. Iran may have conventional missles that can reach Israel, but no nuclear warheads to fit on a missle yet. So they could shoot missles at each other I guess. But that wouldn't make any side able to actually win, so I guess both sides aren't interested in war.

Saudi has been suggested as a rout.

Also France, Denmark etc.

Since neither country's armies can reach each other (since neither side has any significant sealift capacity that I am aware of) then all they can do is conduct air-raids and shoot missiles at each other. I don't think many generals would advise war in such a case.

If Israel attacks the Iranian nuclear program, Iran will not declare war (due to the above and also due to the Americans being "next door" on two borders), and Israel has never really seen the need to declare war if all they are doing is dropping a few bombs.

So, chance of war = nil.

Chance of increased terrorism due to Iranian funding = 100%.

Mongers is second only to Timmay in retarda-threads.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2009, 05:37:09 PM
Mongers is second only to Timmay in retarda-threads.

I don't know, i think mongers is worst. remember the "what tree are you" thread?

Quote from: HVC on September 25, 2009, 05:41:50 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2009, 05:37:09 PM
Mongers is second only to Timmay in retarda-threads.

I don't know, i think mongers is worst. remember the "what tree are you" thread?

Meh, Mongers does it out of boredom;  Timmay does it because he's got, like, Asparagus Syndrome, or some other malady that keeps him perpetually golly gosh gee 13 years old.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2009, 05:49:51 PM

Quote from: HVC on September 25, 2009, 05:41:50 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2009, 05:37:09 PM
Mongers is second only to Timmay in retarda-threads.

I don't know, i think mongers is worst. remember the "what tree are you" thread?

Meh, Mongers does it out of boredom;  Timmay does it because he's got, like, Asparagus Syndrome, or some other malady that keeps him perpetually golly gosh gee 13 years old.

Only on the internet.

Anyways lets get back on the subject of Iran.

How do you guys see the new revelations playing out?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/with_iran_the_cuban_missile_cr.html

Quote
With Iran, 'The Cuban Missile Crisis in Slow Motion'

Graham Allison, a Harvard professor who is one of America's leading security strategists, likes to speak of the U.S.-Iranian nuclear confrontation as "the Cuban missile crisis in slow motion." Well, on Friday morning, that slow-mo process started moving a little faster, as President Obama issued a stark warning about a secret Iranian project that poses a "direct challenge" to the international order.

World leaders used language this morning that described a dangerous ladder of escalation ahead. Obama said Iran will be "held accountable" for its actions. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that unless Iran changes its nuclear stance by December, harsher sanctions will be imposed. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, normally no Churchill, said there was "no choice today but to draw a line in the sand."

Allison's Cuban analogy may strike some people as alarmist, but it seems more and more apt to me. The United States and its allies have caught Iran cheating, again, on International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards -- this time by building a second undeclared enrichment facility in a mountain near Qom. It was an Iranian effort to gain leverage, reminiscent of Moscow's moves in Cuba in 1962 as described by Allison in his classic book, "Essence of Decision."

The Iranians outed their covert project in a lame, obtuse letter to the IAEA last Monday. But they must have suspected that the U.S., which has covertly monitored this breakout since the Bush administration, was about to blow the whistle.

A senior Obama administration official described the enrichment facility as a "hardened" facility, built to withstand attack, which has been under construction for several years. Constructing this mountain fortress was a significant Iranian move, since if it had remained undiscovered, it would have allowed them to keep pushing toward bomb production even if the Natanz enrichment site were taken out in a bombing attack or closed through negotiations. Basically, it gave them the ability to cheat.

So why didn't the Obama administration lay down an even stronger marker in response to this breakout -- by threatening, say, to intercept ships at sea that it believed were carrying parts for the Iranian nuclear program?

The answer, explained the senior official in a telephone interview, is that the U.S. wants to preserve consensus among its allies for much harsher sanctions, even as it heads toward a face-to-face negotiating meeting with the Iranians on Oct. 1.The U.S. has privately communicated with the Iranians in recent days that it wants those talks to go forward, the senior official said.

Obama's consensus-building seems to be working: The U.S. briefed top Russian officials this week on the intelligence about the Iranian covert enrichment site. "They are now much more prone to join us" in backing tough sanctions if Iran doesn't back down, the senior official said. "They have been bamboozled by the Iranians. They're pretty mad."

If the negotiations fail and Iran makes a further breakout toward weapons capability, "we could always escalate," says the senior administration official. It's hard to see how this one will end short of military confrontation if the Iranians don't start bargaining for real.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 25, 2009, 02:37:14 PM

They may soon have nothing left to lose.

Still, even after the last 'election' crap they're not a out and out evil dictatorship. They're not exactly going to see the writing on the wall, the rebels at the gates and decide there's nothing for it, they should launch the nukes.
Even full-on, no pretensions of democracy dictators never did that.

I agree with Agelastus I guess.
Chances of aerial skirmishing/Israel bombing Iran a little- quite high. This will also lead to increased terrorism.
A actual war? Nah.

Quote from: Tyr on September 25, 2009, 06:24:20 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 25, 2009, 02:37:14 PM

They may soon have nothing left to lose.

Still, even after the last 'election' crap they're not a out and out evil dictatorship.

:yeahright:

What colours are each side's counters?

Quote from: Warspite on September 26, 2009, 05:16:36 AM
What colours are each side's counters?

Israel light blue text on white background
Iran black text on brown background (hard to read :bleeding: )
Revolutionary guard have green text on brown background (easy to read)
US white on blue
UK white on blue with "Uk" [sic] in corner
Iraq black on blue
Kurds white on blue with black stripe
Gulf Arabs white on blue with yellow stripe
Saudis white on green

Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2009, 05:49:51 PM
Meh, Mongers does it out of boredom;  Timmay does it because he's got, like, Asparagus Syndrome, or some other malady that keeps him perpetually golly gosh gee 13 years old.

One of the main symptoms of Asperger's is lack of empathy; that is a terrible diagnosis.

Better break it to Timmay gently then.

Quote from: Viking on September 26, 2009, 05:29:08 AM

Quote from: Warspite on September 26, 2009, 05:16:36 AM
What colours are each side's counters?

Israel light blue text on white background
Iran black text on brown background (hard to read :bleeding: )
Revolutionary guard have green text on brown background (easy to read)
US white on blue
UK white on blue with "Uk" [sic] in corner
Iraq black on blue
Kurds white on blue with black stripe
Gulf Arabs white on blue with yellow stripe
Saudis white on green

Great, now I want to play TOAW.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!  :mad:

How times change.

This was pre-drone, or near it.

Still probably not going to happen, but more likely than it was

Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 29, 2024, 08:41:54 AMStill probably not going to happen, but more likely than it was

I'm guessing the axis of evil might try something on the 7th

Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 29, 2024, 08:41:54 AMStill probably not going to happen, but more likely than it was

 :huh:

It's being fought as we speak.

I predict an imminent Israeli attack on the Iranian leadership. Would not be surprised if Khamenei is dead by this time next week. The movement of the army to the Lebanese border is just a diversionary ruse. The real target is Iran.

Quote from: PJL on September 30, 2024, 10:36:32 AMI predict an imminent Israeli attack on the Iranian leadership. Would not be surprised if Khamenei is dead by this time next week. The movement of the army to the Lebanese border is just a diversionary ruse. The real target is Iran.

Nah. That would be a real escalation unlike the neutralisation of enemy combatants actively attacking Israel like the pan-Muslim British left likes to talk about their strikes against terrorists.

Looks like they are picking off the proxies one by one and daring Iran to react directly.

So I'm trying to quit this hell-hole of a discussion forum, but I keep getting dragged back.  Of course the fault is mine and only mine.

Earlier today I saw a post on the CBC website about the Oct 7 attacks in Israel one year anniversary.  The article was ludicrous - it was all about the attacks by Israel in response4 in Gaza and Lebanon.  You had to go about 5-6 paragraphs deep to find a reference to the dead Israelis and hostages from October 7th.

But I guess I must not have been the only one to be outraged.  Because now if you go on the CBC website the articles now prominently mention the Israeli dead and captured.

So - good I guess?

Beeb, do you really think it is a hell-hole here? Certain posters who are renowned for being disagreeable certainly try to make it that way, but I think if you, like me, avoid them, you'll enjoy this place much more.

You don't actually have to respond to people that consistently prove themselves belligerent and dishonest!

Don't respond to CC.  Easy as that.

Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2024, 04:06:43 PMSo I'm trying to quit this hell-hole of a discussion forum, but I keep getting dragged back.  Of course the fault is mine and only mine.

 :cry: Don't go!

Frankly, the "hell-hole" aspect of the forum is just a couple of massive tard fights, which are enormously amusing.  Just don't take anything here seriously, BB, and you will find it much more fun.

Such drama queen theatrics. Stay or go (and hopefully stay) but don't do whatever this is.

Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2024, 04:53:01 PMFrankly, the "hell-hole" aspect of the forum is just a couple of massive tard fights, which are enormously amusing.  Just don't take anything here seriously, BB, and you will find it much more fun.

The hell hole aspect of this forum is you and CC.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2024, 11:52:20 PM

Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2024, 04:53:01 PMFrankly, the "hell-hole" aspect of the forum is just a couple of massive tard fights, which are enormously amusing.  Just don't take anything here seriously, BB, and you will find it much more fun.

The hell hole aspect of this forum is you and CC.

:yes: Like a battered wife, Beeb thinks that after the 30th time it really will be different when he replies to CC.

I like to think it's a function of his Christian charity.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 07, 2024, 11:52:20 PM

Quote from: grumbler on October 07, 2024, 04:53:01 PMFrankly, the "hell-hole" aspect of the forum is just a couple of massive tard fights, which are enormously amusing.  Just don't take anything here seriously, BB, and you will find it much more fun.

The hell hole aspect of this forum is you and CC.

 :lmfao:  Name a time I made this a "hell hole."  With quotes, please.

QED.

I thought Yi meant "Beeb and CC" when I replied.  :blush:

So, it happened while I was out buying bleach, milk, and suspenders.

Let's go.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2025, 07:55:38 PMSo, it happened while I was out buying bleach, milk, and suspenders.

So you're the one who broke this news to me, scrolling through this old thread wondering why it came back then found this finally and ... googled.  Damn this is huge. 

Trump really caused an avalanche when he killed Soleimani and the Iranians failed to respond.  It revealed the Iranians to be a paper tiger.  Since this they lost Syria and Nasrallah is dead.  I don't think the Iranians even the ability to respond in a meaningful way to this.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2025, 09:50:04 PMTrump really caused an avalanche when he killed Soleimani and the Iranians failed to respond.  It revealed the Iranians to be a paper tiger.  Since this they lost Syria and Nasrallah is dead.  I don't think the Iranians even the ability to respond in a meaningful way to this.

So if they are a paper tiger who can't do shit...why is Israel attacking?

Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2025, 11:22:30 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2025, 09:50:04 PMTrump really caused an avalanche when he killed Soleimani and the Iranians failed to respond.  It revealed the Iranians to be a paper tiger.  Since this they lost Syria and Nasrallah is dead.  I don't think the Iranians even the ability to respond in a meaningful way to this.

So if they are a paper tiger who can't do shit...why is Israel attacking?

To keep them that way.  They obviously don't want the Iranians to have nukes.  Nobody wants that.  Except the Iranians.

Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2025, 11:22:30 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2025, 09:50:04 PMTrump really caused an avalanche when he killed Soleimani and the Iranians failed to respond.  It revealed the Iranians to be a paper tiger.  Since this they lost Syria and Nasrallah is dead.  I don't think the Iranians even the ability to respond in a meaningful way to this.

So if they are a paper tiger who can't do shit...why is Israel attacking?

The news article I just read said that the attack moves attention away from the conflict in Gaza, which is getting less and less popular. It didn't say it was the trigger for the attack, merely one of its outcomes.

It could also be a calculation that this is the optimal time to strike, with a likely lack of consequences from the Trump administration and Iranian weakness. Maybe the calculation is that it'll set the Iranians development back sufficiently to make it worthwhile?

I'm guessing Israel is taking advantage of their international opinion being close to rock bottom, they already levelled Gaza what could an extra strike or two on Iran matter.  Plus Even though I don't support attacks I'm also kind of happy irans shit got hit in my secret heart, guessing many others in the world feel the same.

I'd actually be surprised if they don't follow up for more kill shots although the guys on tv seemed to think Israel may have knocked out a good part of irans counter attack capability. Interested to learn more how bad their nuclear site was hit.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2025, 11:31:48 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2025, 11:22:30 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2025, 09:50:04 PMTrump really caused an avalanche when he killed Soleimani and the Iranians failed to respond.  It revealed the Iranians to be a paper tiger.  Since this they lost Syria and Nasrallah is dead.  I don't think the Iranians even the ability to respond in a meaningful way to this.

So if they are a paper tiger who can't do shit...why is Israel attacking?

To keep them that way.  They obviously don't want the Iranians to have nukes.  Nobody wants that.  Except the Iranians.

We had an agreement with them that seemed to be going well before Trump unilaterally canceled it for no reason. This whole thing seems unnecessary.

Though considering Trump did that and after what Russia did to Ukraine every country should probably want nukes because clearly nobody honors their treaties with you or considers you worth a shit without them. The whole world should nuke up.

But hopefully Iran truly is such a doormat and their capability is truly ruined so this will not have serious consequences.

We'll see.

Is Israel just flying over Syria/Jordan/Irak to hit Iran? That doesn't sound too smart.

It's an audacious opening by Israel I must say. Natanz is bombed, the head of the IRGC got whacked by an Israeli kill team along with Khamenei's most senior adviser, plus a few nuclear scientists. Some of the smaller targets hit were taken out by explosive drones launched from within Iran similar to how Ukraine blew up the russki bombers.  :hmm:

Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2025, 11:37:49 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2025, 11:22:30 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 12, 2025, 09:50:04 PMTrump really caused an avalanche when he killed Soleimani and the Iranians failed to respond.  It revealed the Iranians to be a paper tiger.  Since this they lost Syria and Nasrallah is dead.  I don't think the Iranians even the ability to respond in a meaningful way to this.

So if they are a paper tiger who can't do shit...why is Israel attacking?

The news article I just read said that the attack moves attention away from the conflict in Gaza, which is getting less and less popular. It didn't say it was the trigger for the attack, merely one of its outcomes.

It could also be a calculation that this is the optimal time to strike, with a likely lack of consequences from the Trump administration and Iranian weakness. Maybe the calculation is that it'll set the Iranians development back sufficiently to make it worthwhile?

The UN said Iran was in noncompliance in regard to it's nuclear program, so that is a possible trigger.  The Israelis have done this before with Iraq, back in the 1980's.

Now we know why the US started evacuating families of military personnel from its bases in the ME yesterday.

I wonder if we're going to see the same humiliation spiral with the IRGC as we did with Hezbollah where they'd announce the organizational successor the day after Israel killed them (to show they were unfazed as well as demonstrating an unbroken organizational continuity) only for Israel to then immediately kill them the day after, and so on, until the cleaning lady was the most senior Hezbollah leader.  :hmm: 

Quote from: dist on June 13, 2025, 08:29:39 AMNow we know why the US started evacuating families of military personnel from its bases in the ME yesterday.

Trump telegraphed the attack the day before in a press conference. 

It's telling about how low the bar has been set that something like that is barely even noticed anymore.  Just the cost of doing business with the USA.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 13, 2025, 10:46:45 AM

Quote from: dist on June 13, 2025, 08:29:39 AMNow we know why the US started evacuating families of military personnel from its bases in the ME yesterday.

Trump telegraphed the attack the day before in a press conference. 

It's telling about how low the bar has been set that something like that is barely even noticed anymore.  Just the cost of doing business with the USA.

it's why you shouldn't inform the US of such operations. The UAF have already learned that lesson

So Iran is apparently striking Jerusalem and Tel Aviv with missiles right now: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-says-it-strikes-iran-amid-nuclear-tensions-2025-06-13/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOW3vH64PU&ab_channel=TheEnforcer

if even a fraction of this is actually real...

ugh, would be nice if we could decouple Europe and move it somewhere else

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 14, 2025, 02:13:52 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOW3vH64PU&ab_channel=TheEnforcer

if even a fraction of this is actually real...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GtbW2YdWkAAz4DD?format=jpg&name=small)

Quote from: Legbiter on June 14, 2025, 02:32:52 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 14, 2025, 02:13:52 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOW3vH64PU&ab_channel=TheEnforcer

if even a fraction of this is actually real...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GtbW2YdWkAAz4DD?format=jpg&name=small)

I know, I'm talking about today since the last I've heard is the return drone strike.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 14, 2025, 02:13:52 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOW3vH64PU&ab_channel=TheEnforcer

if even a fraction of this is actually real...

ugh, would be nice if we could decouple Europe and move it somewhere else

Lots and lots of passive voice there. "We have heard" doesn't sound like a very vigorous fact-checking operation.

Seen a few indications that used similar tactics to Ukraine (e.g. drones hidden in trucks that were smuggled in and prepped in-country) in taking out Iranian air defense/radar systems.

Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2025, 11:22:30 PMSo if they are a paper tiger who can't do shit...why is Israel attacking?

The only country capable of significantly damaging Iran's nuclear program (given how deep into mountains their facilities are) is the US. I think Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert have been speaking about this that it is universally acknowledged that the most Israel can do is delay it by somewhere between weeks and months.

The Times reported that earlier in the year it looked like Netanyahu had convinced Trump to authorise a US-Israeli strike as six bombers capable of carrying the weapons that could damage those facilities were lined up ready to go on Diego Garcia.

In terms of the why and why now - the best answers I've seen are Israeli domestic politics, or hoping to provoke an Iranian misstep sufficient to get the US to bomb Iranian facilities,  or to do well enough to inspire the US to join in.

But as with Gaza - to go to Yi's Clausewitz posting - if war is a tool to achieve political ends, I'm very, very unclear what political ends Israel is trying to pursue or that it's military strategy is capable of achieving that (or bringing them significantly closer). My worry is that the military means are the ends.

Is not being in prison a political enough reason?

Quote from: Grey Fox on June 14, 2025, 06:36:55 PMIs not being in prison a political enough reason?

There is certainly that but also when else try to significantly delay the Iranians? Hezbollah is on the ground, the US could not care less, Russia actually depends on Iranian support, and the Iranians have been proven to be a bit of a paper tiger compared to what people thought they could do against Israel from the air.

On other more progressive places on the internet full of zoomers, I find every discussion so infuriating. Full of naive zoomer take that have no sense of history or how anything works.

QuoteOnce again, my country acts in the most shameful way when it comes to the middle east :/

Once again Israel is the poor victim, althewhile Israel attacks every country around it. This is so frustrating. Iran is a souveran country, how can you deny them development of a nuke, but then condem Putin for not accepting Ukraine to join NATO? Either both are right or both are wrong (and to be clear: Ukraine has the right to join NATO, Iran has the right to develop whatever weapon).

This is all so unjust, so obviously wrong, and the West supports the wrong one.

 :bleeding:

An interesting tweet from a diaspora Iranian.

QuoteOne of the funny things I've learned from my travels to Israel this year is that Israelis think that the so-called "Iranian opposition" are basically all retarded. To be clear, I'm talking about legit Israelis with IDF training, not just western jews. When Iranians opposed to the Islamic regime meet Israelis, the questions they ask are direct and probe the logistics of the situation:

"Why aren't you organized?"
"Who is your leader?"
"What is your plan?"
"What kind of resources do you have?"
"What kind of resources do you need?"
"What weapons do you have?"
"What weapons do you need?"
"What's your roadmap?"

And the typical reply from our side is something like: "Well we organized a human rights march in Geneva" to which the Israeli reply is "ok thanks you can get the fuck out now".

Gotta love that Israeli bluntness.  :D

He goes on to elaborate but I don't see some Iranian opposition rising up and overthrowing the regime in the next few weeks.  :hmm:

https://x.com/ameensol/status/1934493236812275997 (https://x.com/ameensol/status/1934493236812275997)

Quote from: Legbiter on June 16, 2025, 04:19:06 AMAn interesting tweet from a diaspora Iranian.

QuoteOne of the funny things I've learned from my travels to Israel this year is that Israelis think that the so-called "Iranian opposition" are basically all retarded. To be clear, I'm talking about legit Israelis with IDF training, not just western jews. When Iranians opposed to the Islamic regime meet Israelis, the questions they ask are direct and probe the logistics of the situation:

"Why aren't you organized?"
"Who is your leader?"
"What is your plan?"
"What kind of resources do you have?"
"What kind of resources do you need?"
"What weapons do you have?"
"What weapons do you need?"
"What's your roadmap?"

And the typical reply from our side is something like: "Well we organized a human rights march in Geneva" to which the Israeli reply is "ok thanks you can get the fuck out now".

Gotta love that Israeli bluntness.  :D

He goes on to elaborate but I don't see some Iranian opposition rising up and overthrowing the regime in the next few weeks.  :hmm:

https://x.com/ameensol/status/1934493236812275997 (https://x.com/ameensol/status/1934493236812275997)

I guess that kind of links into the protests and goals discussion Yi and others were having in the Trump thread

Quote from: Tamas on June 16, 2025, 06:35:14 AMI guess that kind of links into the protests and goals discussion Yi and others were having in the Trump thread

The protests right now in the US are about political mobilization. I don't think we are currently putting forth a coup plan in motion.

Slightly different situation.

Iranian State broadcaster bombed.

Collaborators in repression.

The USS Nimitz carrier group is leaving the South China Sea (cancelling a shore visit to Danang in Vietnam) and headed for the Middle East: https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2025/06/16/uss-nimitz-heading-to-middle-east-defense-official-says/

I wonder how active the US is going to be in the current conflict, and how far Israel is going to go.

Are we about to see a major conflagration in the Middle East?

The Tankers already made their way. F22s are airborne and on their way.

Teheran is getting bombed tonight.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c2kqkd03xn5t?post=asset%3Ae370dd42-e44f-4f32-b050-3c6f896cec74

Quote'Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran', says Trump

In a post on his social media platform Truth Social, US President Donald Trump says that "everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran".

His comments come after Israeli officials advised residents to evacuate parts of north-eastern Tehran earlier today, saying it planned to target "military infrastructure".

In his post, Trump adds that Iran should have signed the deal that he put forward to them in the most recent round of US-Iran nuclear talks.

"Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON," he writes. "I said it over and over again!

"Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!"

The BBC's Anthony Zurcher is in Alberta, Canada, at the G7, which Trump is attending. Our correspondent just asked the president's press aide there for clarification on his social media post.

Zurcher was directed to contact the main White House press team back in Washington for comment. Stick with us as we follow this one up.

Um...what? Tehran, a city of 10 million people? I thought Iran was toothless and we were just launching strategic strikes to disrupt a nuclear program and that program was deep under mountains or something?

Now the United States is going to launch a major strike on a major city?

What...what the fuck are we even doing here?

Is bombing cities really going to stop nuclear proliferation? Seems to me it would do the opposite.

And again, we had a agreement that took care of this problem and Trump just ripped it up for no reason other than Obama made it.

This is going to be the most unpopular war in US history. Trump has not prepped us for this at all. At least Bush brainwashed many of us into thinking Iraq was going to launch a chemical/biological/nuclear attack any moment.

Yes, Israel also issuing evacuation orders similar to those they provide in Gaza. In Farsi their social media posts say:

QuoteDear citizens, for your safety, please leave the described area in the 3rd district of Tehran immediately. In the coming hours, the Israeli army will attack the military infrastructure of the Iranian regime in this area, as it has done in recent days in Tehran. Your presence in this area endangers your life.

Again I've no doubt about Israeli's military capability - I have no idea what political settlement or goal this is all driving to (beyond getting the US involved).

Gotta start the apocalypse somehow. Baby Jesus demands it.

I see lots of people on Facebook celebrating the bombing of Israel.  I thought that bombing like this was a war crime and very, very bad.  Why would people celebrate a thing they think is very, very bad?

Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2025, 08:09:59 PMI see lots of people on Facebook celebrating the bombing of Israel.  I thought that bombing like this was a war crime and very, very bad.  Why would people celebrate a thing they think is very, very bad?

Well go talk to them about it.

Though it probably is less of a crime when a country bombs you first.

I wonder how this is going to affect regime stability in Iran. Will Iranians rally around the government or will it provide an opportunity for regime change?

And I wonder what the odds are of US boots on the ground in the next little while.

Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2025, 08:12:34 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2025, 08:09:59 PMI see lots of people on Facebook celebrating the bombing of Israel.  I thought that bombing like this was a war crime and very, very bad.  Why would people celebrate a thing they think is very, very bad?

Well go talk to them about it.

Though it probably is less of a crime when a country bombs you first.

Interesting idea.  You can commit war crimes if they attack you first.  Anyway, I do talk to them about it.  Mostly I get things like "Jew is dwarf to Muslim!" and "Inshallah", and "Your time is coming IsraHELL".

Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2025, 08:40:19 PMInteresting idea.  You can commit war crimes if they attack you first.  Anyway, I do talk to them about it.  Mostly I get things like "Jew is dwarf to Muslim!" and "Inshallah", and "Your time is coming IsraHELL".

I guess you've curated your algorithm to get the content you're interested in?

Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2025, 08:40:19 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2025, 08:12:34 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2025, 08:09:59 PMI see lots of people on Facebook celebrating the bombing of Israel.  I thought that bombing like this was a war crime and very, very bad.  Why would people celebrate a thing they think is very, very bad?

Well go talk to them about it.

Though it probably is less of a crime when a country bombs you first.

Interesting idea.  You can commit war crimes if they attack you first. 

A bit like the positions you have taken in defence of Israel.

Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2025, 09:45:11 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2025, 08:40:19 PMInteresting idea.  You can commit war crimes if they attack you first.  Anyway, I do talk to them about it.  Mostly I get things like "Jew is dwarf to Muslim!" and "Inshallah", and "Your time is coming IsraHELL".

I guess you've curated your algorithm to get the content you're interested in?

I do get quite a bit of political stuff.  Bunch of Left-wing guillotine stuff and the like.  Lot of Palestine stuff, and now Islamic stuff.  Bunch of hard-right stuff as well.  What is interesting is that they all basically agree on Israel.  Stuff coming from one political ecosystem crosses over into another one.  For instance, a few months ago this comic by Neo-Nazi Stone Toss started making the rounds of Left wing pages
(https://i.imgur.com/RQlPPGY.png)
People would point out this was from an actual Nazi, but the response they would get was "A broken clock is right twice a day", because the one point of agreement you want to have with Nazis is on the topic of Jews.
This one kinda sums up the anti-Zionist movement.
(https://i.imgur.com/ta00mWB.jpeg)

With Israel, regardless of my misgivings about Netanyahu, I assume they're executing on attack plans on military infrastructure and related targets that they've had in their drawers for decades and updated constantly.

With Trump, I assume he wants a theatrical performance that will wow people and will make him look tough and cool.

Though AP is speculating that the US is being asked to use their arsenal to hit targets Israel can't.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-g7-carney-canada-trade-iran-75c17fffe96c9031d8ebb22af923d86c

Quote[...] So far, Israel has targeted multiple Iranian nuclear program sites but has not been able to destroy Iran's Fordo uranium enrichment facility.

The site is buried deep underground — and to eliminate it, Israel may need the 30,000-pound (14,000-kilogram) GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the U.S. bunker-busting bomb that uses its weight and sheer kinetic force to reach deeply buried targets. Israel does not have the munition or the bomber needed to deliver it. The penetrator is currently delivered by the B-2 stealth bomber. [...]

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 16, 2025, 09:54:22 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2025, 08:40:19 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2025, 08:12:34 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2025, 08:09:59 PMI see lots of people on Facebook celebrating the bombing of Israel.  I thought that bombing like this was a war crime and very, very bad.  Why would people celebrate a thing they think is very, very bad?

Well go talk to them about it.

Though it probably is less of a crime when a country bombs you first.

Interesting idea.  You can commit war crimes if they attack you first. 

A bit like the positions you have taken in defence of Israel.

Correct.  I'm just glad Valmy and much of the world seems to agree with me. :)

Another angle on the timing of the attack - could a contributing factor be that Russia is in no position to support its Iranian client at the moment?

Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2025, 11:19:13 PMAnother angle on the timing of the attack - could a contributing factor be that Russia is in no position to support its Iranian client at the moment?

Probably a factor, but I could also see Netanyahu/Putin having an understanding of sorts? You let us do this, we stay out of Ukraine/pressure US to stay out of Ukraine?

Quote from: Syt on June 16, 2025, 11:23:17 PMProbably a factor, but I could also see Netanyahu/Putin having an understanding of sorts? You let us do this, we stay out of Ukraine/pressure US to stay out of Ukraine?

What capability does Russia have to let or not let Israel attack Iran at this point in time?

Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2025, 11:08:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 16, 2025, 09:54:22 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2025, 08:40:19 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 16, 2025, 08:12:34 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2025, 08:09:59 PMI see lots of people on Facebook celebrating the bombing of Israel.  I thought that bombing like this was a war crime and very, very bad.  Why would people celebrate a thing they think is very, very bad?

Well go talk to them about it.

Though it probably is less of a crime when a country bombs you first.

Interesting idea.  You can commit war crimes if they attack you first. 

A bit like the positions you have taken in defence of Israel.

Correct.  I'm just glad Valmy and much of the world seems to agree with me. :)

That might be your algorithm again

Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2025, 11:32:13 PM

Quote from: Syt on June 16, 2025, 11:23:17 PMProbably a factor, but I could also see Netanyahu/Putin having an understanding of sorts? You let us do this, we stay out of Ukraine/pressure US to stay out of Ukraine?

What capability does Russia have to let or not let Israel attack Iran at this point in time?

No idea. I'd assume they could provide some hypersonic missiles or similar to Iran in exchange for drones, but there would be no plausible deniability.

Quote from: Syt on June 17, 2025, 07:11:16 AM

Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2025, 11:32:13 PM

Quote from: Syt on June 16, 2025, 11:23:17 PMProbably a factor, but I could also see Netanyahu/Putin having an understanding of sorts? You let us do this, we stay out of Ukraine/pressure US to stay out of Ukraine?

What capability does Russia have to let or not let Israel attack Iran at this point in time?

No idea. I'd assume they could provide some hypersonic missiles or similar to Iran in exchange for drones, but there would be no plausible deniability.

You suggested some agreement between Russia and Israel.  Giving missiles to Iran would be an unlikely incentive for Israel.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 17, 2025, 07:09:09 AMThat might be your algorithm again

Maybe, tell you what:  If the UN charges Iran with genocide I was wrong.

I think we can go with the fact that the leader of Israel has already been charged with war crimes and so you might want to reflect on that for a bit.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 17, 2025, 09:28:46 AMI think we can go with the fact that the leader of Israel has already been charged with war crimes and so you might want to reflect on that for a bit.

See, if another leader is charged with the same crime for the same thing then the law is being used fairly.  If not, then it is not.  There is probably some legal word for only using the law against people you don't like.  So It would be interesting to see if the leader of Iran is charged with war crimes by the UN.  If he is then it would be a vindication that bombing civilians is bad rather than simply being Jewish is bad.  Same thing with Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

So much for reflection.  The people who claim much of Languish is Yi are right after all.

Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2025, 08:33:54 PMI wonder how this is going to affect regime stability in Iran. Will Iranians rally around the government or will it provide an opportunity for regime change?

And I wonder what the odds are of US boots on the ground in the next little while.

Yeah, I don't know. The internal dynamics of Iran are tricky to work out.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 17, 2025, 09:28:46 AMI think we can go with the fact that the leader of Israel has already been charged with war crimes and so you might want to reflect on that for a bit.

The leader of Israel has already been charged with crimes by Israel itself.

The fact that he is a corrupt, monstrous, liar and we all know this is especially encouraging in this situation.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2025, 08:58:57 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 17, 2025, 07:09:09 AMThat might be your algorithm again

Maybe, tell you what:  If the UN charges Iran with genocide I was wrong.

So what is worse in your book: being massively hypocritical or actually committing ethnic cleansing or genocide? Because you seem much more concerned with the former than the latter.

Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2025, 10:17:25 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 17, 2025, 09:28:46 AMI think we can go with the fact that the leader of Israel has already been charged with war crimes and so you might want to reflect on that for a bit.

The leader of Israel has already been charged with crimes by Israel itself.

The fact that he is a corrupt, monstrous, liar and we all know this is especially encouraging in this situation.

Yep

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 17, 2025, 09:50:33 AMSo much for reflection.  The people who claim much of Languish is Yi are right after all.

Have you thought about doing some reflection?  Like why is it a crime when Israel does it but not when Iran does it?

Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2025, 10:19:25 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2025, 08:58:57 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 17, 2025, 07:09:09 AMThat might be your algorithm again

Maybe, tell you what:  If the UN charges Iran with genocide I was wrong.

So what is worse in your book: being massively hypocritical or actually committing ethnic cleansing or genocide? Because you seem much more concerned with the former than the latter.

I do not think that that a bombing campaign is genocide, and really I don't think anyone else does either.  People who believe that a bombing campaign is genocide wouldn't be cheering one against Israel unless they themselves were genocidal (and admittedly that may be the case with many of them).  A double standard based on perceived ancestry is called racism.  I'm not objecting so much to the hypocrisy, I'm objecting to the racism.  The UN could dispel those concerns with charges of war crimes for Saudi Arabia, Iran, and a genocide charge against president Xi of China.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2025, 10:40:03 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 17, 2025, 09:50:33 AMSo much for reflection.  The people who claim much of Languish is Yi are right after all.

Have you thought about doing some reflection?  Like why is it a crime when Israel does it but not when Iran does it?

What is Iran doing that has your panties in a twist?  Firing rockets at Israel? That might, indeed, be a war crime, but it depends on what the Iranians are targeting.  e know that, in the Israeli case in Gaza that they are attempting to make it impossible for the Gazans to stay. Their more honest fascists in the government have said so.

From all accounts, the Israeli strikes in Iran are on legitimate targets.  Some of them seem like they could be ignoring collateral damage (like dropping an entire apartment building in the hopes of killing a specific person) but there isn't enough info to conclude anything yet.

Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2025, 11:14:42 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2025, 10:40:03 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 17, 2025, 09:50:33 AMSo much for reflection.  The people who claim much of Languish is Yi are right after all.

Have you thought about doing some reflection?  Like why is it a crime when Israel does it but not when Iran does it?

What is Iran doing that has your panties in a twist?  Firing rockets at Israel? That might, indeed, be a war crime, but it depends on what the Iranians are targeting.  e know that, in the Israeli case in Gaza that they are attempting to make it impossible for the Gazans to stay. Their more honest fascists in the government have said so.

From all accounts, the Israeli strikes in Iran are on legitimate targets.  Some of them seem like they could be ignoring collateral damage (like dropping an entire apartment building in the hopes of killing a specific person) but there isn't enough info to conclude anything yet.

And the Iranians frequently make statements about irradicating Israel (as do the fascists in Gaza, if you believe a Gazan can be fascist), so their attacks can also be understood as making it impossible for for the Israelis to stay.  With that in mind I'm sure the UN will begin proceeding against the Iranian leadership, as they will against the leaders in Saudi Arabia for the famine that cost the lives of tens of thousands of children.  Unless charges of war crimes and genocide are not legal actions but politics.

Raz, consider the possibility that the war crime accusations leveled against Israel concern acts other than the simple killing of civilians.

I would imagine Putin and Bibi are both egging Trump on to join in against Iran. Gulf oil deliveries being severely hindered sounds like excellent for Russia, not to mention American commitment to a war frowned upon by China.

I'm not convinced Russia is so willing to throw over an ally like Iran without getting something more substantial in return.

Quote from: frunk on June 17, 2025, 01:06:24 PMI'm not convinced Russia is so willing to throw over an ally like Iran without getting something more substantial in return.

Yeah. While Russia would benefit from higher oil prices, throwing out long term alliances for perceived short term gain seems more of a Trump play.

Israeli loitering drones are just cruising unopposed over Tehran. Incredible.

Also Trump just posted "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!" on his socials so it's regime change at this point it seems.  :hmm:

A lot of MAGA types on twitter are having trouble processing this change... :hmm:

So Trump says a lot of things that often are only tenuously connected to what's actually happening.

But a US + Israel war on Iran to affect regime change would be... I don't know... a tall mountain to climb, IMO. Taking the premise at face value for the moment, my disparate thoughts are:

• Leaving aside the moral elements altogether for a moment, I feel like this has potential to be a US repeat of Putin's invasion of Ukraine. There's a real risk to get stuck in a quagmire that drains US money, materiel, and lives for a long time.
• Is the idea that Iran is going to unconditionally surrender without US (or Israeli?) boots on the ground, purely from a bombing campaign? I would be surprised if that works.
• If the US is serious in affecting regime change in Iran, it'll likely need to position more forces in theatre than it has now. This will likely take some time.
• While Trump and Hegseth are very "America #1, everyone else sucks", I assume they'd still like some support from others (if for no other reason than to feel like a hegemon ordering lesser countries around)... but who would support the US here? Saudi Arabia?
• Domestically, I expect there'll be some opposition to the war but Trump might also be hoping for a "rallying around the flag during wartime" effect.

I don't know... I still think this typical Trumpian bluster that will be followed up with very firm and pompous statements all over the map, and relatively minimal action.

Separate from that, it'll be interesting to see what China and Russia does - to what degree will they be interested in  and able to prop up Iran?

The likelihood of a major war is not decreasing, IMO.

China could flood Iran with aid if only to test their equipment against Americas in a relatively risk free scenario. IIRC their equipment in Pakistan did well against the western weapons of India.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 17, 2025, 12:07:34 PMRaz, consider the possibility that the war crime accusations leveled against Israel concern acts other than the simple killing of civilians.

I do.  Genocide accusations were made before the bombing started in Gaza.  The Genocide is Israel existing.  That is the crime.  Genocide is now widely considered the worst crime possible, it is the ultimate evil.  Jews as Genocidal neatly replaces Jews as Satanic for a more secular age.  Israel is considered Hostis Humani generis, just like Jews were in the Middle Ages.

Quote from: Jacob on June 17, 2025, 01:38:51 PMDomestically, I expect there'll be some opposition to the war but Trump might also be hoping for a "rallying around the flag during wartime" effect.

He hasn't prepped us for that. Bush did an all out propaganda effort for months and still his war was very divisive.

The prospect of Liberal tears is enough for Republicans.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2025, 01:46:09 PMI do.  Genocide accusations were made before the bombing started in Gaza.  The Genocide is Israel existing.  That is the crime.  Genocide is now widely considered the worst crime possible, it is the ultimate evil.  Jews as Genocidal neatly replaces Jews as Satanic for a more secular age.  Israel is considered Hostis Humani generis, just like Jews were in the Middle Ages.

OK, you've thought about when the genocide accusations started.  Now think about when the war crime accusations started.

Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2025, 01:47:59 PMHe hasn't prepped us for that. Bush did an all out propaganda effort for months and still his war was very divisive.

Yeah.

I don't know, I guess the tenor of US media (social & classic) will be indicative of the intention. Are we going to see them go into build up for war mode? Or are they going to stay in "we might fire some missiles and provide intelligence support for Israeli actions" mode?

I still lean towards the US not taking much action (in part because Trump typically is afraid of taking action), but I also didn't think Putin would actually launch his invasion until very close to the actual launch date.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 17, 2025, 01:50:27 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2025, 01:46:09 PMI do.  Genocide accusations were made before the bombing started in Gaza.  The Genocide is Israel existing.  That is the crime.  Genocide is now widely considered the worst crime possible, it is the ultimate evil.  Jews as Genocidal neatly replaces Jews as Satanic for a more secular age.  Israel is considered Hostis Humani generis, just like Jews were in the Middle Ages.

OK, you've thought about when the genocide accusations started.  Now think about when the war crime accusations started.

Same time.  The accusations don't have much to do with what is going on.  People are fine with people of other ethnicities  engaging in similar behavior.  It is just leveraging international law in the service of racial hatred.  The issue is not that Palestinian are getting killed, it is that the wrong type of people are killing them.

Quote from: Legbiter on June 17, 2025, 01:20:13 PMIsraeli loitering drones are just cruising unopposed over Tehran. Incredible.

Also Trump just posted "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!" on his socials so it's regime change at this point it seems.  :hmm:

A lot of MAGA types on twitter are having trouble processing this change... :hmm:

or he's talking about himself. He is a TACO after all

Should not have to wait too long to see what the US does. If B-2's start blowing up targets in Iran in the next days that'll be it.

Quote from: Legbiter on June 17, 2025, 02:10:15 PMShould not have to wait too long to see what the US does. If B-2's start blowing up targets in Iran in the next days that'll be it.

We started seeing worrying signs in the weeks leading up to this attack. America was removing non-essential personnel from bases and embassies in the days leading up to the strike on Iran. Now we can see American ships and other forces move around. Something is going to happen, Trump and his cronies are up to something.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GtqFyXEaQAA-YGl?format=jpg&name=small)

Yeah seems Trump wants in on this, after seeing how easily Iran got curbstomped.  :hmm:

Also:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GtmsKrva0AAqAnA?format=jpg&name=small)

An official nickname. Kooky Carlson.

Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2025, 08:33:54 PMI wonder how this is going to affect regime stability in Iran. Will Iranians rally around the government or will it provide an opportunity for regime change?

My expectation would 100% be a rally round the flag.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2025, 10:50:59 AMI do not think that that a bombing campaign is genocide, and really I don't think anyone else does either.  People who believe that a bombing campaign is genocide wouldn't be cheering one against Israel unless they themselves were genocidal (and admittedly that may be the case with many of them).  A double standard based on perceived ancestry is called racism.  I'm not objecting so much to the hypocrisy, I'm objecting to the racism.  The UN could dispel those concerns with charges of war crimes for Saudi Arabia, Iran, and a genocide charge against president Xi of China.

You keep saying "the UN", but the UN doesn't press charges.  That's the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is a separate inter-governmental tribunal created by the Rome Statute.  Except in very limited circumstances, the ICC can only prosecute crimes that are either committed in a member state, or by individuals from a member state.

Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and China are not member states, so the court has no jurisdiction there.  There was actually was a call to investigate China (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/world/asia/china-xinjiang-uighur-court.html), but the court determined they had no evidence that any of the crimes occurred outside of China or involved anyone from a member state outside of China.  Palestine and Ukraine are member states, which is why the ICC can indict Russians and Israelis involved in those conflicts despite those states not being member states.

Further, Netanyahu and Gallant have not bee charged with genocide by the ICC, just war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Literally the only person who the ICC has ever charged with genocide is Omar al-Bashir.

Quote from: Legbiter on June 17, 2025, 02:34:20 PM(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GtqFyXEaQAA-YGl?format=jpg&name=small)

Yeah seems Trump wants in on this, after seeing how easily Iran got curbstomped.  :hmm:

Also:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GtmsKrva0AAqAnA?format=jpg&name=small)

An official nickname. Kooky Carlson.

I bet Bibi, not to mention the IAF, are annoyed how this old fucker swoops in taking all the credit. "we"?

But on the MAGA people having trouble supporting Trump going to war in the Middle East - grow up. They are in way too deep to question the leader.

I guess the US had spent too long without getting itself entangled in the Middle East yet again?

Born too early to fight in the sandbox.  Born too late to fight in the sandbox.  Born just in time to fight in the sandbox.

Quote from: Tamas on June 17, 2025, 03:33:41 PMBut on the MAGA people having trouble supporting Trump going to war in the Middle East - grow up.

Yeah but it's funny to observe now because a new patch hasn't dropped yet with a new cope so they're floundering for a bit.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 17, 2025, 03:32:40 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2025, 10:50:59 AMI do not think that that a bombing campaign is genocide, and really I don't think anyone else does either.  People who believe that a bombing campaign is genocide wouldn't be cheering one against Israel unless they themselves were genocidal (and admittedly that may be the case with many of them).  A double standard based on perceived ancestry is called racism.  I'm not objecting so much to the hypocrisy, I'm objecting to the racism.  The UN could dispel those concerns with charges of war crimes for Saudi Arabia, Iran, and a genocide charge against president Xi of China.

You keep saying "the UN", but the UN doesn't press charges.  That's the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is a separate inter-governmental tribunal created by the Rome Statute.  Except in very limited circumstances, the ICC can only prosecute crimes that are either committed in a member state, or by individuals from a member state.

Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and China are not member states, so the court has no jurisdiction there.  There was actually was a call to investigate China (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/world/asia/china-xinjiang-uighur-court.html), but the court determined they had no evidence that any of the crimes occurred outside of China or involved anyone from a member state outside of China.  Palestine and Ukraine are member states, which is why the ICC can indict Russians and Israelis involved in those conflicts despite those states not being member states.

Further, Netanyahu and Gallant have not bee charged with genocide by the ICC, just war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Literally the only person who the ICC has ever charged with genocide is Omar al-Bashir.

The UN has the power to form criminal tribunals in cases of genocide AND it has the ability to refer cases to the ICC even if the belligerents are not members of the ICC.  THe UN did establish Tribunals concerning war crimes and genocide in both Yugoslavia and Rwanda,  which of course were not a party the Rome treaty since it didn't exist yet.

QuoteThe Court may exercise jurisdiction in a situation where genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes were committed on or after 1 July 2002 and:

the crimes were committed by a State Party national, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court; or

the crimes were referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) pursuant to a resolution adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works

Raz, the UN does not have the power to "form criminal tribunals".  The UN Security Council could refer a matter to the ICC if there is a resolution passed - but now think about who has a power of veto in the UN Security Council. 

Quote from: Jacob on June 17, 2025, 01:38:51 PMSo Trump says a lot of things that often are only tenuously connected to what's actually happening.

But a US + Israel war on Iran to affect regime change would be... I don't know... a tall mountain to climb, IMO. Taking the premise at face value for the moment, my disparate thoughts are:

• Leaving aside the moral elements altogether for a moment, I feel like this has potential to be a US repeat of Putin's invasion of Ukraine. There's a real risk to get stuck in a quagmire that drains US money, materiel, and lives for a long time.
• Is the idea that Iran is going to unconditionally surrender without US (or Israeli?) boots on the ground, purely from a bombing campaign? I would be surprised if that works.
• If the US is serious in affecting regime change in Iran, it'll likely need to position more forces in theatre than it has now. This will likely take some time.
• While Trump and Hegseth are very "America #1, everyone else sucks", I assume they'd still like some support from others (if for no other reason than to feel like a hegemon ordering lesser countries around)... but who would support the US here? Saudi Arabia?
• Domestically, I expect there'll be some opposition to the war but Trump might also be hoping for a "rallying around the flag during wartime" effect.

I don't know... I still think this typical Trumpian bluster that will be followed up with very firm and pompous statements all over the map, and relatively minimal action.

Separate from that, it'll be interesting to see what China and Russia does - to what degree will they be interested in  and able to prop up Iran?

The likelihood of a major war is not decreasing, IMO.

Regime change would effect nothing positive aside from perhaps a long delay to the nuclear program.

Whatever government emerged would very likely be no better than the clerical regime, and could be worse.

If the current regime collapses (e.g. the Ayatollah dead and no clerical ruler emerges to replace him) my guess is the most likely sort of government is one where a general from the IRGC takes over and rules as a military junta

While this wouldn't be Iran's current theocracy, all of the IRGC generals hate the West with the intensity of the sun, are Islamists, extreme nationalists and by most reports more bellicose than the Ayatollah is.

Such a regime would likely endeavor to rush to a nuclear device of some sort.

Given Iran's ethnic divisions a Syria style civil war could also occur—and like the Iranian Revolution, whoever ends up winning that will probably be quite bad.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2025, 04:25:50 PMThe UN has the power to form criminal tribunals in cases of genocide AND it has the ability to refer cases to the ICC even if the belligerents are not members of the ICC.  THe UN did establish Tribunals concerning war crimes and genocide in both Yugoslavia and Rwanda,  which of course were not a party the Rome treaty since it didn't exist yet.

QuoteThe Court may exercise jurisdiction in a situation where genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes were committed on or after 1 July 2002 and:

the crimes were committed by a State Party national, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court; or

the crimes were referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) pursuant to a resolution adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works

Yes, that's the "very limited circumstances" I was referring to.  As far as I can tell, the genocide in Darfur is the only time the UNSC has exercised its referral power against a non-member-state of the ICC.  As I already noted, this is also the only time someone has actually been charged with genocide by the ICC.

The UN had nothing to do with the indictments of Netanyahu, Gallant, or Deif (Sinwar and Haniyeh were also going to be indicted, but Israel offed them before the ICC had a chance).  Those indictments were handed down by the ICC under its own authority because Palestine is a signatory.  The UN has not referred anything to the ICC with respect to Palestine, because it doesn't need to.  No one associated with the situation in Palestine has actually been charged with genocide.

This whole subthread started because you claimed the UN was prosecuting Israelis, and only Israelis, for genocide.  None of those three things is true.

Agree with a lot of OvB's points.

From a European perspective really not sure that on top of Russia, Syria, Libya and the Sahel we need another failed state with a population of 90 million. And again Turkey as the shock absorber (though unclear how long it can play that role).

I can be: Ottoman Empire?

Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2025, 01:55:31 PMSame time.  The accusations don't have much to do with what is going on.  People are fine with people of other ethnicities  engaging in similar behavior.  It is just leveraging international law in the service of racial hatred.  The issue is not that Palestinian are getting killed, it is that the wrong type of people are killing them.

I can think of a few things that preceded the allegations: the strikes on ambulances and the interruption of humanitarian supplies.  If you ignore facts you're engaging in exactly the same type of myth building you're accusing your opponents of doing.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 17, 2025, 04:50:19 PMRaz, the UN does not have the power to "form criminal tribunals".  The UN Security Council could refer a matter to the ICC if there is a resolution passed - but now think about who has a power of veto in the UN Security Council. 

Yes, they do.  They have done so in the past.  I'm fairly certain that Saudi Arabia isn't on the UN security council and neither is Iran.  If you want to argue that there is double standard where the powerful can do what they want while the weak and vulnerable can be charged with crimes, then you might have a point.  But if that is the case, what kind of legitimacy does such a system have?

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 17, 2025, 05:00:19 PMRegime change would effect nothing positive aside from perhaps a long delay to the nuclear program.

Whatever government emerged would very likely be no better than the clerical regime, and could be worse.

If the current regime collapses (e.g. the Ayatollah dead and no clerical ruler emerges to replace him) my guess is the most likely sort of government is one where a general from the IRGC takes over and rules as a military junta

While this wouldn't be Iran's current theocracy, all of the IRGC generals hate the West with the intensity of the sun, are Islamists, extreme nationalists and by most reports more bellicose than the Ayatollah is.

Such a regime would likely endeavor to rush to a nuclear device of some sort.

Given Iran's ethnic divisions a Syria style civil war could also occur—and like the Iranian Revolution, whoever ends up winning that will probably be quite bad.

Yeah, that all makes sense to me. Doesn't seem overly compelling as a strategic choice if you ask me, but I suppose we'll see where it goes.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2025, 05:18:19 PMYes, they do.  They have done so in the past.  I'm fairly certain that Saudi Arabia isn't on the UN security council and neither is Iran.  If you want to argue that there is double standard where the powerful can do what they want while the weak and vulnerable can be charged with crimes, then you might have a point. But if that is the case, what kind of legitimacy does such a system have?

That is absolutely the double standard but it's the reality of international politics and there is no "legitimacy" to it in the way we'd mean about a domestic political order. The legitimacy of international law is broadly that states willingly bind themselves to it - the Geneva conventions are broadly a good example or the prohibitions on chemical weapons. Broadly speaking states could use that weapon and choose not to because they have bound themselves to that rule. That is not the way domestic law works which is about who has the power to bind others - and in a democracy it is our fellow citizens.

So I'm not sure the international order or law is meaningfully normative or subject to some external source of legitimacy - I think there's something slightly different going on with an organisation like the EU (but just about only the EU). This is the balance between the principles of international law which do emphasise self-determination and sovereignty v liberal values that may come at the cost of that (Blair's "international community" concept explaining Kosovo and also justifying Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq).

Although on Saudi, they're a US ally and Western countries have backed that conflict. I think Biden stopped formal assistance but the US (and UK among others) continued to provide arms to Saudi.

Do we have any indication of the likely scope of US contribution, beyond Trumpian social media posts?

And do we have any indication of what the Israeli general plan is?

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 17, 2025, 05:00:57 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2025, 04:25:50 PMThe UN has the power to form criminal tribunals in cases of genocide AND it has the ability to refer cases to the ICC even if the belligerents are not members of the ICC.  THe UN did establish Tribunals concerning war crimes and genocide in both Yugoslavia and Rwanda,  which of course were not a party the Rome treaty since it didn't exist yet.

QuoteThe Court may exercise jurisdiction in a situation where genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes were committed on or after 1 July 2002 and:

the crimes were committed by a State Party national, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court; or

the crimes were referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) pursuant to a resolution adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works

Yes, that's the "very limited circumstances" I was referring to.  As far as I can tell, the genocide in Darfur is the only time the UNSC has exercised its referral power against a non-member-state of the ICC.  As I already noted, this is also the only time someone has actually been charged with genocide by the ICC.

The UN had nothing to do with the indictments of Netanyahu, Gallant, or Deif (Sinwar and Haniyeh were also going to be indicted, but Israel offed them before the ICC had a chance).  Those indictments were handed down by the ICC under its own authority because Palestine is a signatory.  The UN has not referred anything to the ICC with respect to Palestine, because it doesn't need to.  No one associated with the situation in Palestine has actually been charged with genocide.

This whole subthread started because you claimed the UN was prosecuting Israelis, and only Israelis, for genocide.  None of those three things is true.

It started by me noting that antizionists were quite happy that Iranian bombs were killing Israelis, undercutting the common claim that bombing civilians was bad.  Israeli bombing of civilians are bad.  Bombing of Israeli citizens is apparently praise worthy.  The ICC jurisdiction was always questionable of course, as Palestine is not a state, and the Palestinian authority has very little claim to territory they don't even control.  Presumably any group could get the ICC involved by signing the Rome protocols.  Imagine if the Uyghurs claimed statehood and backed it up by signing the treaty.  Or the Houthis.

The Truth is the UN can step in Yemen or Iran or other places, but chooses not to.  Because the UN has in the past equated Zionism is racism, then I think there is a reason for this.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 17, 2025, 05:15:58 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2025, 01:55:31 PMSame time.  The accusations don't have much to do with what is going on.  People are fine with people of other ethnicities  engaging in similar behavior.  It is just leveraging international law in the service of racial hatred.  The issue is not that Palestinian are getting killed, it is that the wrong type of people are killing them.

I can think of a few things that preceded the allegations: the strikes on ambulances and the interruption of humanitarian supplies.  If you ignore facts you're engaging in exactly the same type of myth building you're accusing your opponents of doing.

But the accusations of war crimes came before that.  The UN was investigating accusations of war crimes in Israel before OCT 7th had even happened.

War crimes don't matter. So much ink and digital ink spent talking about it on every corner of the internet and newspaper for absolutely nothing.

They. Don't. Matter. Never have.

Quote from: Grey Fox on June 17, 2025, 05:58:42 PMWar crimes don't matter. So much ink and digital ink spent talking about it on every corner of the internet and newspaper for absolutely nothing.

They. Don't. Matter. Never have.

They are only war crimes if you lose...well ok only war crimes if you lose so big your country gets occupied by an enemy army who is pissed about your war crimes.

Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2025, 06:10:00 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on June 17, 2025, 05:58:42 PMWar crimes don't matter. So much ink and digital ink spent talking about it on every corner of the internet and newspaper for absolutely nothing.

They. Don't. Matter. Never have.

They are only war crimes if you lose...well ok only war crimes if you lose so big your country gets occupied by an enemy army who is pissed about your war crimes.

This is basically true, but there is a rather twisted addendum:  If you commit war crimes you are more likely to win, so actually committing war crimes reduces the chance you will be punished for war crimes.  If you don't commit war crimes, the winner can still convict you of them if they feel like it.

By the by on this - I strongly recommend Gary Bass' Judgement at Tokyo.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2025, 01:46:09 PMI do.  Genocide accusations were made before the bombing started in Gaza.  The Genocide is Israel existing.  That is the crime.  Genocide is now widely considered the worst crime possible, it is the ultimate evil.  Jews as Genocidal neatly replaces Jews as Satanic for a more secular age.  Israel is considered Hostis Humani generis, just like Jews were in the Middle Ages.

I am not sure whether you just cannot comprehend the difference between formal ICC charges (based on a thorough investigation) and vague "genocide accusations were made by somebody or other" or whether you are just not bothering to argue in good faith. Note that when you use passive voice ("accusations were made") that's pretty much a dead giveaway that you are pulling shit out of your ass.

Same for equating the specific policy goal as stated by a member of the Israeli government to some vague "Iranians frequently make statements about irradicating[sic] Israel."

Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2025, 01:44:57 PMChina could flood Iran with aid if only to test their equipment against Americas in a relatively risk free scenario. IIRC their equipment in Pakistan did well against the western weapons of India.

China might not find it easy to get any military equipment to Iran, let alone flooding the country with it.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2025, 05:18:19 PMYes, they do.  They have done so in the past.  I'm fairly certain that Saudi Arabia isn't on the UN security council and neither is Iran.  If you want to argue that there is double standard where the powerful can do what they want while the weak and vulnerable can be charged with crimes, then you might have a point.  But if that is the case, what kind of legitimacy does such a system have?

The ICC specifically replaced the ICT system.

Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2025, 07:39:08 PM

Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2025, 01:44:57 PMChina could flood Iran with aid if only to test their equipment against Americas in a relatively risk free scenario. IIRC their equipment in Pakistan did well against the western weapons of India.

China might not find it easy to get any military equipment to Iran, let alone flooding the country with it.

Would the Stans not allow shipments? I really don't know their relationships with either parties.

Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2025, 07:51:21 PM

Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2025, 07:39:08 PM

Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2025, 01:44:57 PMChina could flood Iran with aid if only to test their equipment against Americas in a relatively risk free scenario. IIRC their equipment in Pakistan did well against the western weapons of India.

China might not find it easy to get any military equipment to Iran, let alone flooding the country with it.

Would the Stans not allow shipments? I really don't know their relationships with either parties.

There's only a single major rail line and two roads linking Turkmenistan and Iran. How long do you think they would last if the Chinese tried to use them to arm Iran?

Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2025, 07:57:26 PM

Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2025, 07:51:21 PM

Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2025, 07:39:08 PM

Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2025, 01:44:57 PMChina could flood Iran with aid if only to test their equipment against Americas in a relatively risk free scenario. IIRC their equipment in Pakistan did well against the western weapons of India.

China might not find it easy to get any military equipment to Iran, let alone flooding the country with it.

Would the Stans not allow shipments? I really don't know their relationships with either parties.

There's only a single major rail line and two roads linking Turkmenistan and Iran. How long do you think they would last if the Chinese tried to use them to arm Iran?

Fair enough :D you obviously know more about the situation then I do

Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2025, 07:39:08 PM

Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2025, 01:44:57 PMChina could flood Iran with aid if only to test their equipment against Americas in a relatively risk free scenario. IIRC their equipment in Pakistan did well against the western weapons of India.

China might not find it easy to get any military equipment to Iran, let alone flooding the country with it.

15 days by rail according to this: https://wentworthreport.com/2025/06/17/china-iran-railroad-just-opened/

Significantly less vulnerable to a potential US blockade than shipping by sea, I'd assume.

Is that sufficient to supply Iran? I don't know, but I believe rail is pretty effective?

Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2025, 07:37:27 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2025, 01:46:09 PMI do.  Genocide accusations were made before the bombing started in Gaza.  The Genocide is Israel existing.  That is the crime.  Genocide is now widely considered the worst crime possible, it is the ultimate evil.  Jews as Genocidal neatly replaces Jews as Satanic for a more secular age.  Israel is considered Hostis Humani generis, just like Jews were in the Middle Ages.

I am not sure whether you just cannot comprehend the difference between formal ICC charges (based on a thorough investigation) and vague "genocide accusations were made by somebody or other" or whether you are just not bothering to argue in good faith. Note that when you use passive voice ("accusations were made") that's pretty much a dead giveaway that you are pulling shit out of your ass.

Same for equating the specific policy goal as stated by a member of the Israeli government to some vague "Iranians frequently make statements about irradicating[sic] Israel."

Really, going to bat for the Iranians?  Tsk, tsk.  I couldn't find my quote about " "genocide accusations were made by somebody or other", could you direct me too it?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/nothing-will-be-left-of-israel-if-it-attacks-iranian-commander-threatens/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/top-iranian-cleric-warns-hezbollah-can-raze-haifa-and-tel-aviv-to-the-ground/
These Iranian threats seem to be fairly representative.  I considered posting some Iranian propaganda about Israel, but seeing the kind of things that antizionists produce makes Jake sqeamish.

If I err to much by blaming the UN it because CC assured me that the UN definition of genocide is definitive and that it "rules".  If he is wrong, please tell him before he misinforms someone else!

So leaving aside the genocide brickbat, what is trumpistan likely to do over the next couple of days?

Re-enactment of The Tanker War from circa 1986-7?

I can see B2 bombings of the key nuclear site forcing the Iranians playing their one last card, attempting to 'close' the Strait of Hormuz, which is bound to drag the US into attacking any Iranian naval/missile assets in the Gulf.

Maybe trump will attack first, saying they're pre-empting any Iranian attacks?

Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2025, 08:23:13 PMReally, going to bat for the Iranians?  Tsk, tsk.

You've answered my question. You aren't confused, you are arguing in bad faith. We're done.

Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2025, 08:58:41 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2025, 08:23:13 PMReally, going to bat for the Iranians?  Tsk, tsk.

You've answered my question. You aren't confused, you are arguing in bad faith. We're done.

Yeah, well you did make up a quote, so right back at you.

So don't you normally need to invade a country and defeat them completely before they unconditionally surrender  :hmm:

I read those tweets by Trump like a boy getting excited because Iran is losing and wanting to pile on, but seems more likely to me he ends up chickening out.

So let me understand..the same revolving endless argument in the Israel-Hamas thread has migrated to this one now?

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 17, 2025, 11:10:08 PMSo let me understand..the same revolving endless argument in the Israel-Hamas thread has migrated to this one now?

Everyone needs a hobby.

Quote from: Legbiter on June 17, 2025, 04:21:16 PM

Quote from: Tamas on June 17, 2025, 03:33:41 PMBut on the MAGA people having trouble supporting Trump going to war in the Middle East - grow up.

Yeah but it's funny to observe now because a new patch hasn't dropped yet with a new cope so they're floundering for a bit.

They'll be jackbooting to Teheran soon enough should taco decide to get involved

Quote from: Jacob on June 17, 2025, 08:18:23 PM

Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2025, 07:39:08 PM

Quote from: HVC on June 17, 2025, 01:44:57 PMChina could flood Iran with aid if only to test their equipment against Americas in a relatively risk free scenario. IIRC their equipment in Pakistan did well against the western weapons of India.

China might not find it easy to get any military equipment to Iran, let alone flooding the country with it.

15 days by rail according to this: https://wentworthreport.com/2025/06/17/china-iran-railroad-just-opened/

Significantly less vulnerable to a potential US blockade than shipping by sea, I'd assume.

Is that sufficient to supply Iran? I don't know, but I believe rail is pretty effective?

It works for the Russians and their stuff coming from the dprk

Imagine getting owned this hard by Tucker Carlson
https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3lrttmjbhj22e

I guess taco finds all these European bases suddenly useful now?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 18, 2025, 03:44:22 AMImagine getting owned this hard by Tucker Carlson
https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3lrttmjbhj22e

Wait, are the Magots trying to push the idea that Iran is trying to have Trump assassinated?

Cruz: "No, you don't know anything about the country. You're the one who claims they are not trying to murder Donald Trump."

Quote from: dist on June 18, 2025, 05:08:58 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 18, 2025, 03:44:22 AMImagine getting owned this hard by Tucker Carlson
https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3lrttmjbhj22e

Wait, are the Magots trying to push the idea that Iran is trying to have Trump assassinated?

Cruz: "No, you don't know anything about the country. You're the one who claims they are not trying to murder Donald Trump."

Bibi threw it ouy there, probably because he knew a good slice of Trump's base wouldn't be on board.

Didn't Biden had to warn them to stop trying to assassinnate Trump before the 2024 election?

We charged a guy in the assassination plot last year.

China sends mystery transport planes to Iran (https://www.cnbctv18.com/world/china-sends-mystery-transport-planes-to-iran-report-19622970.htm)

Well I guess we should have thought about flying stuff to Iran.

Israel is running out of interceptors.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 18, 2025, 09:46:50 AM

Israel is running out of interceptors.

Iran may have missiles but Israel is taking out its launchers which explains why each successive Iranian attack has had less missiles

Quote from: mongers on June 17, 2025, 08:44:01 PMI can see B2 bombings of the key nuclear site forcing the Iranians playing their one last card, attempting to 'close' the Strait of Hormuz, which is bound to drag the US into attacking any Iranian naval/missile assets in the Gulf.

The US is now a net energy exporter so closing the strait seems to mostly hurt China. The Iranians might go for it if Israel blows up Khark island oil terminal which handles about 98% of their crude exports...

Quote from: mongers on June 17, 2025, 08:44:01 PMMaybe trump will attack first, saying they're pre-empting any Iranian attacks?

lol Trump sounded today like a hype man for a WWE fight on whether he'd bomb Iran. Probably he will.

The US still imports a lot of oil.  That is the reason there is a trade imbalance between the US and Canada.  I am not sure how much the Americans source from the Middle East now though.

Quote from: Legbiter on June 18, 2025, 11:42:09 AMThe US is now a net energy exporter so closing the strait seems to mostly hurt China. The Iranians might go for it if Israel blows up Khark island oil terminal which handles about 98% of their crude exports...

Maybe.

You're right China buys about 80-90% of Iranian energy exports - but China's energy policy is deliberately designed to avoid reliance on oil and gas (which they don't have). I think largely to avoid dependency but I think also to avoid having to become a security guarantor/ordering nation in the Middle East.

So China's share of energy from oil is just under 20% - that's one of the lowest in the world, European countries are somewhere between 30-50% for example. Similarly gas is less than 10% - almost every European country is at least double that. Gas is tough, but my understanding is Iran isn't a major gas exporter (I think they're below the UK and our very dwindling North Sea reserves - and oil is fungible globally. In addition, as with food, China's built up a strategic oil reserve of crude (and my understanding is they've been stockpiling at record rates in the last few months). There'd definitely be a hit but I'm not sure how significant it would be for China. I think it'd be a bit of turbulence rather than a big issue.

Closing the strait and hiting Iranian energy infrastructure would, I think, mainly hurt Europe and I think other Asian countries. Pakistan and Japan import a lot of LNG, with Qatar a big supplier, and India uses a LOT of oil in its energy mix - so China moving from cheap sanctioned suppliers into the global market for a smaller share of their supply would, I think, have a big impact there. I believe there are Qatari tankers of LNG headed for Europe that are currently bottled up because of the risk - and that's before a strike. I think the combination of no Russian gas, plus the Persian Gulf not being able to export, plus Suez routes no longer being necessarily secure would be a big challenge for Europe.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 18, 2025, 12:05:39 PMI think the combination of no Russian gas, plus the Persian Gulf not being able to export, plus Suez routes no longer being necessarily secure would be a big challenge for Europe

Yeah.

Reality is brutal.

(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/13gAAOSwSzxiKYQE/s-l400.jpg)

I'm going to open up a Scotch and pour me a large one. Feels like I've seen a variation of this before in Iraq, Libya and Syria. :glare:

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2025, 11:47:10 AMThe US still imports a lot of oil.  That is the reason there is a trade imbalance between the US and Canada.  I am not sure how much the Americans source from the Middle East now though.

We do still import a lot of oil, but it is increasingly by choice.  The US almost produces enough oil to fill its own needs.  Though Legbiter said "energy", we have been a next exporter of oil specifically since 2020, and have been close to producing enough for ourselves since 2019, per the EIA (https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php).  That's not to say the US doesn't have significant interest in ensuring the continued flow of Gulf oil, but the concerts there are really about our allies and world economic stability, not our own direct needs.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 18, 2025, 01:16:21 PMWe do still import a lot of oil, but it is increasingly by choice.  The US almost produces enough oil to fill its own needs.  Though Legbiter said "energy", we have been a next exporter of oil specifically since 2020, and have been close to producing enough for ourselves since 2019, per the EIA (https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php).  That's not to say the US doesn't have significant interest in ensuring the continued flow of Gulf oil, but the concerts there are really about our allies and world economic stability, not our own direct needs.

Sounds like the US under the current administration does not, in fact, have an interest there.

There is no point trying to discern a grand strategy because the two key actors are entirely consumed by domestic politics.

You can look in vain for any strategic reason for the timing of Israel's attack.  The only relevant, recent regional event of interest happened a few days later when Netanyahu suffered a blow to his coalition's viability as two coalition deputies broke ranks to vote against him on a confidence vote. Bibi knows two things: once he falls he is facing jail time for corruption and that maintaining high intensity military conflict is his best play to stay on as PM.  The math is simple and crude, but it adds up.

As for Trump, this crisis has badly exposed the abject weakness he attempts to disguise with juvenile bluster and boastfulness. Given advance notice of Israel's intentions, he made clear through public statements his desire to pursue diplomatic talks and his opposition to an Israeli strike.  Israel ignored him and struck anyways and has been fabulously rewarded for the insult with unconditional approval from Trump, some of it backdated.  After seeing Israel make things go boom, Trump quickly sacrificed his publicly announced "policy" and his credibility to jump on the bandwagon of the breathless 24 hour cycle of conflict news porn.  Of course, in part this reflects the emptiness of the policy.  At some level, Trump presumably knows he has no clue how to negotiate with Iran; his stated policy for talks flows from his reflexive preference to portray himself as DEAL-maker, not from any carefully thought out diplomatic initiative. But he is always ready to take on the Apprentice-like role of "tough guy," proven by avoiding any actual toughness in favor of recycling tough guy dialogue from B-movies.

Quote from: Jacob on June 18, 2025, 01:24:50 PMSounds like the US under the current administration does not, in fact, have an interest there.

What if this is all a misdirection for Operation Rake.  :lol:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2025, 01:30:41 PMYou can look in vain for any strategic reason for the timing of Israel's attack.  The only relevant, recent regional event of interest happened a few days later when Netanyahu suffered a blow to his coalition's viability as two coalition deputies broke ranks to vote against him on a confidence vote. Bibi knows two things: once he falls he is facing jail time for corruption and that maintaining high intensity military conflict is his best play to stay on as PM.  The math is simple and crude, but it adds up.

The sausage is roughly made as you said but a light injury on a mortal enemy is worse than none. He has to bomb Iran to pieces now that he has started.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2025, 01:30:41 PMAs for Trump, this crisis has badly exposed the abject weakness he attempts to disguise with juvenile bluster and boastfulness. Given advance notice of Israel's intentions, he made clear through public statements his desire to pursue diplomatic talks and his opposition to an Israeli strike.  Israel ignored him and struck anyways and has been fabulously rewarded for the insult with unconditional approval from Trump, some of it backdated.  After seeing Israel make things go boom, Trump quickly sacrificed his publicly announced "policy" and his credibility to jump on the bandwagon of the breathless 24 hour cycle of conflict news porn.  Of course, in part this reflects the emptiness of the policy.  At some level, Trump presumably knows he has no clue how to negotiate with Iran; his stated policy for talks flows from his reflexive preference to portray himself as DEAL-maker, not from any carefully thought out diplomatic initiative. But he is always ready to take on the Apprentice-like role of "tough guy," proven by avoiding any actual toughness in favor of recycling tough guy dialogue from B-movies.

I like the idea that he was just so impressed by how easy Israel rolled up almost 50 years of Iranian threats in 2 days he felt real fear of missing out on an easy win.

For some reason I can't start a poll on the topic, but I'm curious how you all feel?

• How likely is it that Trump will TACO this - basically just bluster and do nothing?
• How likely is it that he'll support Israel with intelligence, maybe fly some sorties, and fire a bunch of missiles and rockets; but not commit beyond that.
• And how likely is it that he'll let the US get dragged into a full on war scenario, with boots on the ground and actual fighting?

My feeling is that we're likely looking at somewhere between 1. and 2. My read on Trump is that he does not want to give the order to deploy troops on the ground, for two reasons:

One - it's an unequivocal decision that rests with him, it does not generate any obvious grift opportunities, and it carries the risk for real blame and responsibility landing on him in a way that cannot easily be deflected.

Two - deploying troops is a long term commitments that cannot be easily reversed without looking feckless and cannot be covered up with bluster.

But I dunno... what do you think?

Option 1. Trump is not a True Believer like Pence or Huckabee, so he's probably thinking about it much like you suggested. Now, if the Stephen Miller faction is overthrown and a religious right one takes over, then... who can say. Trump is a bully and therefore a coward at heart.

Trump declares the "Ultimate Ultimatum", and the next day he says doesn't know what he's going to do.  The man is simply stupid.  I'm going to go with "Bluster and do nothing".  I imagine we've already shared intelligence with the Israelis.

Damn, I was *just* going to post exactly what Joan wrote.  :mad:

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 18, 2025, 01:16:21 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 18, 2025, 11:47:10 AMThe US still imports a lot of oil.  That is the reason there is a trade imbalance between the US and Canada.  I am not sure how much the Americans source from the Middle East now though.

We do still import a lot of oil, but it is increasingly by choice.  The US almost produces enough oil to fill its own needs.  Though Legbiter said "energy", we have been a next exporter of oil specifically since 2020, and have been close to producing enough for ourselves since 2019, per the EIA (https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php).  That's not to say the US doesn't have significant interest in ensuring the continued flow of Gulf oil, but the concerts there are really about our allies and world economic stability, not our own direct needs.

As I understand it, while it is accurate to say the US is a net exporter on paper, it is really a question of refinery capacity and type of oil the refineries are set up to refine.  That is the reason why Trump had to abandon the notion of putting a tariff on Canadian energy (oil). The US would have had to reconfigure its refining infrastructure. And that sort of thing takes years and Billions of dollars to do.

He'll probably bluster, but if he picks option 2 he'll be goaded into 3 since the orangina can't stand being insulted and the Iranians will do something that he'll see as an insult. escalation from there.

it's the dumbest timeline, and it's getting dumber by the week

For argument's sake, let's say Trump does decide that he wants to use the military to force regime change in Iran...

What would that look like?

What sort of commitment of forces would that take?

How long would it take to position those forces to act?

What sort of troop movements and force concentrations should we be looking for to see that something is about to happen, as opposed to people like Graham and Cruz posturing in the media?

The invasion of Iraq took half a million US soldiers and Iran has about five times the population of Iraq... So this is something that simply isn't in the cards.

2 seems most probable at the moment. Can't see Trump going for 3, except by accident, which is admittedly quite likely.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2025, 01:30:41 PMAs for Trump, this crisis has badly exposed the abject weakness he attempts to disguise with juvenile bluster and boastfulness. Given advance notice of Israel's intentions, he made clear through public statements his desire to pursue diplomatic talks and his opposition to an Israeli strike.  Israel ignored him and struck anyways and has been fabulously rewarded for the insult with unconditional approval from Trump, some of it backdated.  After seeing Israel make things go boom, Trump quickly sacrificed his publicly announced "policy" and his credibility to jump on the bandwagon of the breathless 24 hour cycle of conflict news porn.  Of course, in part this reflects the emptiness of the policy.  At some level, Trump presumably knows he has no clue how to negotiate with Iran; his stated policy for talks flows from his reflexive preference to portray himself as DEAL-maker, not from any carefully thought out diplomatic initiative. But he is always ready to take on the Apprentice-like role of "tough guy," proven by avoiding any actual toughness in favor of recycling tough guy dialogue from B-movies.

I'd add to this his comments today that Iran's behaved very badly, but there could still be talks and he could order military action too. Or, as he put it: "I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do."

I agree with everything you've said but I'd that it is the producer instinct of a big reality TV show. Add twists and turns and unpredictability, keep people watching - as with his comment in the Zelensky meeting, "this is going to be great television".

As an aside I am struck at European passivity, no-one really staking a position and even with Merz even saying Israel is doing "dirty work for us all" - it's a world away from 2003.

Not sure what you want Europe to do exactly.

Quote from: Zoupa on June 18, 2025, 05:11:29 PMNot sure what you want Europe to do exactly.

Maybe pick up the phone to de Villepin for some ideas.

Edit: But as I say it's the passivity or absence that is striking to me - on basically either side.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 18, 2025, 04:41:14 PMAs an aside I am struck at European passivity, no-one really staking a position and even with Merz even saying Israel is doing "dirty work for us all" - it's a world away from 2003.

So much a world away that I am not sure why you are making any comparison.

Isn't European passivity basically saying "we're not supporting you because it's kind of excessive and unneeded, but neither are we condemning you because our alliance hasn't actually fully fractured and maybe it can be fixed some time down the road"?

Europe is allied with both the US and Israel, but given what's happened this year I don't think there's a whole lot of appetite for lining up and supporting whatever it is Israel and the US are trying to accomplish - in part because it's not clear what they're trying to achieve, how, or why; and in part because Trump especially has been antagonistic towards Europe.

And I'm sorry Sheilbh, I don't understand your line about calling de Villepin. Can you expand on it a bit?

Quote from: Jacob on June 18, 2025, 05:19:29 PMIsn't European passivity basically saying "we're not supporting you because it's kind of excessive and unneeded, but neither are we condemning you because our alliance hasn't actually fully fractured and maybe it can be fixed some time down the road"?

Europe is allied with both the US and Israel, but given what's happened this year I don't think there's a whole lot of appetite for lining up and supporting whatever it is Israel and the US are trying to accomplish (in part because it's not clear what they're trying to achieve, how, or why).

And I'm sorry Sheilbh, I don't understand your line about calling de Villepin. Can you expand on it a bit?

Yeah I think that's possibly part of it, especially not wanting to annoy the US too much given Russia - and it also demonstrates the value of European bases to Trump.

But what I was thinking was in the run-up to the Iraq war there were millions of people on protests against the Iraq war. French and German leaders were leading efforts to oppose the war in the UN - actively lobbying countries to vote against it in the General Assembly and, in the case of Fischer and de Villepin making very robust arguments openly at the UN against it.

On the other side you had Blair acting as an outrider for the war and US policy. Doing the opposite in many ways, travelling the world actively lobbying countries on behalf of the US and making the case for the war as well as being heavily involved in the UN approach. Aznar and Berlusconi were also, in their different ways, making the case for supporting the US.

We've got talk of regime change again for a country twice the size of Iraq - and Europe imports more energy now than it did in 2003 so is more exposed (again) to an energy shock. So I find the lack of response either from the public or leaders trying to shape events really striking - that could be a very hawkish leader backing the US and Israel (possibly aiming for a quid pro quo) or leaders trying to oppose it in all forums they have available. It's something that will have vastly bigger effects on Europe than America but everyone just seems to be spectating - I find it very odd.

I don't think that anyone knows what to do.  Not the Netanyahu, not the Iranians, not Trump, not the Europeans, not anyone.  I don't see the purpose of any of this.  The Israeli can't knock out the Iranian nuclear program with weapons, hell the US can't do that bar actually using a nuke.  The idea that Israel can instigate a regime change is laughable.  I agree with Minksy on Netanyahu, him trying to stay out of jail is the only plausible reason for this.  If someone else has a alternative idea what the fuck is going on, I'm all ears.

I suspect that a strong European effort to influence events will largely be futile. Israel has basically ignored Europe on Gaza, why would anyone expect them to listen on Iran? And Trump, I suspect, would love getting European input primarily so he could publicly ridicule and ignore it

What would the possible European positions be? I can imagine a few:

• "Violence is not the answer, we urge negotiation and will happily facilitate it!" - IMO that's a position for later. It's going to be ignored now.
• "We are all in with Israel and the US in fighting against the imminent threat for Iran" - I expect that would be too big a domestic politics hit for most.
• "Hey, we'll support you quietly but in return please make sure ME energy exports aren't fucked up" - I guess that makes sense, but is probably best done behind the scenes.

None of them seem super compelling.

Maybe this is demonstrating that European influence in the Middle East is mostly a spent force. Europe is busy focusing on Ukraine and Russia. Maybe the Middle East is the US' show, with their Israeli friends.

Then there's the other bit where Trump's mercurial shifting means it may be better to wait and see what he actually does before crafting a distinct response. After all, he'll probably take five radically different positions in as many days. Basically, respond to what he does, not what he says.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2025, 06:10:08 PMI don't think that anyone knows what to do.  Not the Netanyahu, not the Iranians, not Trump, not the Europeans, not anyone.  I don't see the purpose of any of this.  The Israeli can't knock out the Iranian nuclear program with weapons, hell the US can't do that bar actually using a nuke.  The idea that Israel can instigate a regime change is laughable.  I agree with Minksy on Netanyahu, him trying to stay out of jail is the only plausible reason for this.  If someone else has a alternative idea what the fuck is going on, I'm all ears.

That's the most plausible theory I can think of also.

Quote from: Jacob on June 18, 2025, 06:17:02 PMMaybe this is demonstrating that European influence in the Middle East is mostly a spent force. Europe is busy focusing on Ukraine and Russia. Maybe the Middle East is the US' show, with their Israeli friends.

I think it's demonstrating that European influence, without the US to back it up, is effectively nil. Europe (collectively or individually) doesn't speak up because no one cares what Europe thinks, because they have very little way to force their preferred outcome.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 18, 2025, 05:34:20 PMand Europe imports more energy now than it did in 2003 so is more exposed (again) to an energy shock.

Do you have recent stats on that?  I'm curious, because I only see partial data for 2023-2024 and up to Q4 2024, it shows a drop in imports.

Quote from: Jacob on June 18, 2025, 06:17:02 PMI suspect that a strong European effort to influence events will largely be futile. Israel has basically ignored Europe on Gaza, why would anyone expect them to listen on Iran? And Trump, I suspect, would love getting European input primarily so he could publicly ridicule and ignore it

Yes, I think it is as simple as that. What role could European nations possibly have in this dispute.  Not to mention they would have to deal with a leader who has already been charged with war crimes.  I don't understand why they are being characterized as being passive.

I agree with all of this and I'm not saying I'd expect "a" European position or even just talking about politicians. There wasn't a single European position in 2003 and one of the differences I find striking is - so far - the lack of protests.

And I think Raz is probably right on leaders not really knowing how to respond. I suppose the other side to that is that is their job (as is often the case I think the only European leader showing at least a bit of ambition is Macron).

And I don't think it would necessarily work - I'd argue that in the end all the Euro-positions of 2003 (whether Blair, Schroeder, Chirac, Berlusconi etc) failed in delivering what they aspired to. That may also be part of the "just stay out of it" attitude.

But the bit I find troubling is that we've seen the knock on effects of Russia's war on energy on Europe's economies and politics and similarly the impact of Middle East instability to migration flows and European politics. We may want to stay out of the way of events - I'm not sure events are going to stay out of our way (and again I think this is the key job of a leader).

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 18, 2025, 06:27:09 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 18, 2025, 06:17:02 PMMaybe this is demonstrating that European influence in the Middle East is mostly a spent force. Europe is busy focusing on Ukraine and Russia. Maybe the Middle East is the US' show, with their Israeli friends.

I think it's demonstrating that European influence, without the US to back it up, is effectively nil. Europe (collectively or individually) doesn't speak up because no one cares what Europe thinks, because they have very little way to force their preferred outcome.

It could be that Europe doesn't really have a preferred outcome. We don't even have a credible list of possible outcomes at this point. Do you?

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 18, 2025, 06:27:09 PMI think it's demonstrating that European influence, without the US to back it up, is effectively nil. Europe (collectively or individually) doesn't speak up because no one cares what Europe thinks, because they have very little way to force their preferred outcome.

I don't think Europe's influence was based on the US backing it up. I think it was based on Europe's ability to influence the US, and to some extent Israel. Which it lacks now. So sort of the same think, but slightly different.

I don't believe Europe has independently tried to exert influence reliant on power projection essentially since the Suez crisis (?). Whatever power Europe has had in recent time has been because the US lead "the West" and Europe as an important part of "the West" had some influence on what "the West" wanted.

Europe backed up around US projects, the US considered European interests to some extent, and Europe could tinker around the edges with moral persuasion, trade, and culture.

That dynamic is mostly gone. It'll probably take a bit to figure out what's next for Europe. I agree European influence here is basically nil, because no one cares what Europe thinks here. Which - @Sheilbh - I think is a good reason not to make strong statements one way or the other.

It's also hard to compare 2003 to now. The reasons given for invading Iraq were ridiculous. Iran on the other hand has been a sponsor of Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad, Houthis and is clearly keen on getting nuclear weapons. There's also no sign (at this moment) of boots on the ground.

All in all I think most Europeans/European governments are fine with what's going on.

Quote from: Jacob on June 18, 2025, 06:53:34 PMI don't believe Europe has independently tried to exert influence reliant on power projection essentially since the Suez crisis (?).

Bosnia and Libya.  Then there's France acting solo in the Sahel and the UK solo in Falklands and Sierra Leone.

Quote from: Zoupa on June 18, 2025, 06:48:03 PMIt could be that Europe doesn't really have a preferred outcome. We don't even have a credible list of possible outcomes at this point. Do you?

I think Sheilbh outlined one preferred outcome - that energy flows from the area are not massively disturbed by this conflict. Seems like we're aligned with China on this and (possibly?) the US (and of course the exporters themselves).

Beyond that, I think you're right. I don't see a strong European interest here, beyond preserving the rules based international order (that ship is sailing) and stopping nuclear proliferation (seems like that ship is also sailing).

And, of course, Europe doesn't have particularly many levers to pull here either.

Quote from: viper37 on June 18, 2025, 06:27:26 PMDo you have recent stats on that?  I'm curious, because I only see partial data for 2023-2024 and up to Q4 2024, it shows a drop in imports.

Sorry I think I'm wrong - it's basically flat-lined (but the mix has changed so it was more oil heavy in the early 200s and now more tilted to gas) so the energy import dependency is within a very similar range as in the early 2000s. It increased a fair bit from the 90s to the 2000s with shutting down of Communist era industry and some of the coal stuff (which Europe has in abundance).

QuoteYes, I think it is as simple as that. What role could European nations possibly have in this dispute.  Not to mention they would have to deal with a leader who has already been charged with war crimes.  I don't understand why they are being characterized as being passive.

You've agreed that it would be futile and they'd be ignored - and question what possible role they could have. I don't necessarily disagree, I think that might well be right but to me that seems like an explanation for passivity rather than an argument that it's wrong to characterise them as passive.

Although the role Europe will have in this "dispute" is that we're next door to the Middle East and will be directly affected by the consequences. Whether that's migration or energy - if this keeps escalating and particularly if there's any attempt at "regime change" that will have an impact on Europe. We're talking about a country four times the size of Syria next to key routes in Europe's energy supply chain. I think we're more exposed than in 2003 when the rest of the Middle East was broadly solid seeming, if unsavoury, authoritarian regimes we either could do business with or sanctioned.

And to flip it the other way I think there are consequences with the Russia-Iranian relationship and perhaps proving the worth of Europe to the US and binding them in - which is why I think Kaja Kallas has been pretty hawkish.

Either way it feels consequential for Europe so a "let's wait and see" approach (again slight exception for Macron) seems striking to me. Especially compared with 2003 which, I think, was less consequential for Europe - and didn't come after a Middle Eastern refugee crisis or an energy crisis so would be expected by leaders at the time to produce have less impact.

It may well be the right approach - and I think Raz is right - but I think it's interesting.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 18, 2025, 06:59:38 PMBosnia and Libya.  Then there's France acting solo in the Sahel and the UK solo in Falklands and Sierra Leone.

Fair points.

I meant in the Middle East, which I should've specified. Arguably one could include Libya in the Middle East (if you think of it as "the Islamic World"), but it is also Mediterranean.

Quote from: Jacob on June 18, 2025, 07:02:49 PMI think Sheilbh outlined one preferred outcome - that energy flows from the area are not massively disturbed by this conflict. Seems like we're aligned with China on this and (possibly?) the US (and of course the exporters themselves).

Beyond that, I think you're right. I don't see a strong European interest here, beyond preserving the rules based international order (that ship is sailing) and stopping nuclear proliferation (seems like that ship is also sailing).

And, of course, Europe doesn't have particularly many levers to pull here either.

Yeah.

To energy I'd add avoiding a refugee crisis in a country that's significantly more populous than Syria, Afghanistan or Libya all of which have had big impacts on Europe - and avoiding any spillover that destabilises Turkey. I think those are kind of "neutral" outcomes that basically everyone in Europe would want to avoid. On those I think any language about "regime change" is not helpful.

As I say I do wonder if, on the hawkish side, there's an opportunity to bind the US more tightly to Europe and to in effect bring the US in on the other side of a (different) conflict with a Russian aligned state and if there's opportunity there for European Ukrainian policy. But that strikes me as very, very high risk.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 18, 2025, 06:43:56 PMI agree with all of this and I'm not saying I'd expect "a" European position or even just talking about politicians. There wasn't a single European position in 2003 and one of the differences I find striking is - so far - the lack of protests.

I think the lack of protesting may come down to some combination of:

• Whoever is going to protest against Israel is already protesting.
• The Iranian regime doesn't have good PR, so few people want to speak on their behalf (notwithstanding sympathy for Iranians suffering under the regime). Whatever you may think about the Palestinian cause, they have a much better PR operation in the West than Iran.
• During the Iraq War(s), there was a sense that the US was acting on behalf of us (the West), and that our governments may involve us. There's little to no such sentiment now, this is obviously Trump and Nethanyahu's show.
• There are a bunch of other crises to occupy people's attention - for me chiefly Trump's ongoing dissolution of "the West"; and Russia's attack on Ukraine and threat to Europe.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 18, 2025, 07:11:07 PMYeah.

To energy I'd add avoiding a refugee crisis in a country that's significantly more populous than Syria, Afghanistan or Libya all of which have had big impacts on Europe - and avoiding any spillover that destabilises Turkey. I think those are kind of "neutral" outcomes that basically everyone in Europe would want to avoid. On those I think any language about "regime change" is not helpful.

I think Europe would like to avoid a refugee crisis on general humanitarian grounds, but - maybe I'm being naive - I kind of think Iran's too far for Iranians to arrive in Europe en masse without some sort of Syrian scenario where Europe accepts refugees on humanitarian grounds. I don't think that's as likely as it was during the Syrian civil war.

The risk to Turkey is more substantial, of course, but Turkey has more levers to pull as well.

QuoteAs I say I do wonder if, on the hawkish side, there's an opportunity to bind the US more tightly to Europe and to in effect bring the US in on the other side of a (different) conflict with a Russian aligned state and if there's opportunity there for European Ukrainian policy. But that strikes me as very, very high risk.

I think there's something to that - that it would be beneficial for Europe if the US gets dragged into an intense proxy war with Russia in Iran. It would lessen Iran's ability to support Russia, and potentially even cause Russia to divert forces from Ukraine.

I think some sort of quid pro quo re: Ukraine in return for support on Iran is a bit tenuous (or as you say, high risk) because a) Trump is too devoted to shitting on Europe to actually give credit for any support; and b) Trump can't be relied on to keep any deals.

I see that more as a potential silver lining from one possible scenario than an objective to pursue.

... but I'm not a European decision maker :lol:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 18, 2025, 01:30:41 PMThere is no point trying to discern a grand strategy because the two key actors are entirely consumed by domestic politics.

You can look in vain for any strategic reason for the timing of Israel's attack.

I agree that Bibi's domestic issues are the reason this has been done. But I wouldn't say there are no strategic reasons for the strike at this time from the perspective of an Israeli hawk.

The collapse of Assad's government and the crushing of Hezbollah within the last year has opened a window through which the Israeli's can attack and only be retaliated against by Iran itself. That wasn't possible before.

I disagree on the domestic issues for this. I think the domestic issues are a big part of how and why Bibi has conducted the Gaza War, but I think this is different. Bibi has long made it clear he wants to attack Iran to degrade their capabilities.

I think he saw a unique confluence of diplomatic and military events that meant there was an opportunity where this could be done.

Iran uniquely helped this along, I think, by showing its hand as being incredibly weak after the tit-for-tat missile exchanges earlier in the year. This revealed fatal weakness in Iran's abilities to defend its skies, and went against a lot of defense wonks talking points on a potential conflict with Iran going back 15 years.

I think the other element is it has been made clear there won't be diplomatic consequences. Remember the rest of the world's pressure has basically resulted in a few ICC warrants--which several of the most important powers signatory to the Rome Statute have essentially said they view as invalid / unenforceable, severely undercutting the already weak legitimacy that institution has.

There are news outlets reporting Trump has already approved strikes and is holding off on the final order awaiting Iran deciding to abandon their nuclear program.

One thing that occurs me to is how Trump is rumoured to be deeply jealous of Obamas Nobel peace prize and is desperate to show he's the one who can bring "peace".  He's failed at his Ukraine Russia "negotiations" and may be jumping at the new opportunity.

I'm beginning to think it's going to happen at least to strike key targets.

What a day we live in though when the US president is pondering assassination of a foreign leader on social media.  This is what it's come to...

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 18, 2025, 11:47:49 PMI think the other element is it has been made clear there won't be diplomatic consequences. Remember the rest of the world's pressure has basically resulted in a few ICC warrants--which several of the most important powers signatory to the Rome Statute have essentially said they view as invalid / unenforceable, severely undercutting the already weak legitimacy that institution has.

I said earlier in this thread, I feel like Israel is in a position of nothing to lose and may as well try to knock out all their enemies.  After leveling Gaza I don't think attacking Iran moves the needle in much public opinion.

We would have to review the information but my recollection is analysis has reached the public on striking Fordow. I believe that it has basically been said whatever method used to destroy the facility, Iran would be able to rebuild it within a few years.

The perception of finality is false unless some genuine agreement is reached to stop enrichment.

Iran has bombed an Israeli hospital.

Truly a monstrous state.  Only monsters would do that.

Turns out bombing a hospital is fine after all.  It just has to have the right type of people in it.

Still thinking that Western morality standard matters.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 19, 2025, 09:05:33 AMTurns out bombing a hospital is fine after all.  It just has to have the right type of people in it.

Do you recognize the hypocrisy of your previous positions now?

If the IDF was using the hospital for a military purpose it wouldn't be improper to target it. I'm unaware of any reports to that effect.

We also don't know if Iran targeted the hospital, the intent matters at least under international law, which doesn't criminalize weapons simply because they aren't the state of the art in terms of precision, and certain types of weapons have an higher risk of inadvertently striking civilian targets.

Quote from: viper37 on June 19, 2025, 09:00:32 AMIran has bombed an Israeli hospital.

Truly a monstrous state.  Only monsters would do that.

Iran shouldn't bomb hospitals.

But I am pretty sure that never happened. I was told Trump made the toothless.

Avert your eyes if you're triggered by AI.

"The Circular Error Probable (CEP) of Iranian ballistic missiles varies significantly depending on the specific missile system. Some short-range missiles have a CEP of 10-100 meters, while longer-range missiles like the Shahab-3 have a CEP of around 2,500 meters (2.5km) according to open-source defense assessments and Wikipedia. "

These are not precision strikes.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2025, 09:41:37 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 19, 2025, 09:05:33 AMTurns out bombing a hospital is fine after all.  It just has to have the right type of people in it.

Do you recognize the hypocrisy of your previous positions now?

No, walk me through it.

Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2025, 10:29:27 AM

Quote from: viper37 on June 19, 2025, 09:00:32 AMIran has bombed an Israeli hospital.

Truly a monstrous state.  Only monsters would do that.

Iran shouldn't bomb hospitals.

But I am pretty sure that never happened. I was told Trump made the toothless.

Who told you that?

Quote from: Razgovory on June 19, 2025, 12:08:27 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2025, 09:41:37 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 19, 2025, 09:05:33 AMTurns out bombing a hospital is fine after all.  It just has to have the right type of people in it.

Do you recognize the hypocrisy of your previous positions now?

No, walk me through it.

You defended military strikes on hospitals, but now it is wrong for you based on who is inside.

Consider taking the position that attacking hospitals is always wrong.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 18, 2025, 11:47:49 PMI think he saw a unique confluence of diplomatic and military events that meant there was an opportunity where this could be done.

That window of opportunity opened up in November-December 2024, when both Hezbollah and Assad were taken off the board. The question is why in that six-month period, this particular week was chosen.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 18, 2025, 09:40:17 PMThe collapse of Assad's government and the crushing of Hezbollah within the last year has opened a window through which the Israeli's can attack and only be retaliated against by Iran itself. That wasn't possible before.

Agreed, but per above that explains why the attack happened in 2025, not specifically mid-June 2025

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 19, 2025, 12:25:09 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 18, 2025, 11:47:49 PMI think he saw a unique confluence of diplomatic and military events that meant there was an opportunity where this could be done.

That window of opportunity opened up in November-December 2024, when both Hezbollah and Assad were taken off the board. The question is why in that six-month period, this particular week was chosen.

That's easy. Israel took action once the IAEA report last week said Iran had been in breach of non-proliferation obligations. Given that France, Germany & the UK back the motion, that would also explain muted European reaction to Israeli strikes in Iran. This was a justified CB for Israel to do this.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 19, 2025, 12:25:09 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 18, 2025, 11:47:49 PMI think he saw a unique confluence of diplomatic and military events that meant there was an opportunity where this could be done.

That window of opportunity opened up in November-December 2024, when both Hezbollah and Assad were taken off the board. The question is why in that six-month period, this particular week was chosen.

It could easily be that it took that long to complete the reconnaissance and intelligence-gathering needed to make the attack effective.

Quote from: PJL on June 19, 2025, 12:34:07 PMThat's easy. Israel took action once the IAEA report last week said Iran had been in breach of non-proliferation obligations. Given that France, Germany & the UK back the motion, that would also explain muted European reaction to Israeli strikes in Iran. This was a justified CB for Israel to do this.

That would be an amazingly humorous rationale, given that Israel is MASSIVELY in breach of non-proliferation obligations. In fact, they are in breach about as much as it is possible for a nation to be.

TACO is chickening out. Leavitt just said decision in the next 2 weeks.

Yeah, could be a little bit of both + it appears at least probable the U.S. helped in having a meeting with Iranian negotiators scheduled for Sunday, while likely knowing Iran was going to be attacked on Friday. My guess is the Iranians were not on their highest alert because they were making the assumption Netanyahu wouldn't independently attack them as long as Trump was still at the negotiating table, since we had seen "official leaks" earlier in the week that Trump had forbidden Netanyahu to attack Iran for the time being.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2025, 12:22:00 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 19, 2025, 12:08:27 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2025, 09:41:37 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 19, 2025, 09:05:33 AMTurns out bombing a hospital is fine after all.  It just has to have the right type of people in it.

Do you recognize the hypocrisy of your previous positions now?

No, walk me through it.

You defended military strikes on hospitals, but now it is wrong for you based on who is inside.

Consider taking the position that attacking hospitals is always wrong.

I see you don't read what I write.  I argued that a hospital loses it's protected status if it used for military purposes.  If it is being used as a command and control center for combatants it becomes a legitimate target.  If attacking a hospital is always wrong, then someone could fire shoot from the hospital with impunity.  Perhaps you should consider that.

What I was noting in my post was that I see that many antizionists are fine with a blowing up a hospital, if it is an Israeli hospital.  They do NOT think that blowing up a hospital is always wrong, it is wrong for the Israelis to blow up a hospital.

Quote from: Grey Fox on June 19, 2025, 12:51:04 PMTACO is chickening out. Leavitt just said decision in the next 2 weeks.

I've lost count of how many "2 weeks warning" he gave to Putin.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 18, 2025, 07:11:07 PMAs I say I do wonder if, on the hawkish side, there's an opportunity to bind the US more tightly to Europe and to in effect bring the US in on the other side of a (different) conflict with a Russian aligned state and if there's opportunity there for European Ukrainian policy. But that strikes me as very, very high risk.

More like indulging in fantasy.

Before Jan 2025, the two pillars of US foreign policy were containment of Russian aggression in Europe and containment of PRC aggression in the Pacific.  Aside from the historic cultural, economic, and diplomatic affinities between the US and Europe, those priorities fundamentally aligned with European interests as well. As a consequence and as a consequence of the Russian fiasco in Ukraine, NATO strength and cohesion reached an apex in the late Biden presidency.

Trump has openly repudiated pillar one and less directly repudiated pillar two. There is little doubt that Trump could care less if Russia annexed Ukraine, or for that matter the Baltic States.  On Taiwan there has been a clear retreat form the Biden committment to defend the island.  This has been characterized by some as a return to strategic ambiguity but IMO that is an overly hopeful reading.  Trump did speak concretely on the matter when he told Xi that a PRC invasion on Taiwan would prompt US retaliation . . . in the form of higher tariffs.  This is close to an indirect signal that the US will not use military assets to protect Taiwan. 

And that reading is reinforced by the Trumpian gestalt - does anyone think Trump really cares whether TSMC is controlled by Chinese speaking Taiwanese or Chinese speakers from the mainland?  Trump's affinity for Putin stems from the fact that they share the late 19th century mindset of great power politics and spheres of influence: Trump implicitly accepts the Russian droit de seigneur over Ukraine and the "slavic lands" and the PRC's over Taiwan, even as he asserts his own claims to Canada, Greenland, Panama, etc.

Europe is silent because Europe is still processing the trauma of the sudden shattering of the Atlantic system.  Like Linus, it wanders about clutching its tattered security blanket, lacking the emotional strength to discard it. And Europe is silent because it lacks the physical strength as well: its military forces are glaringly inadequate and the timeline for their restoration is uncertain.

It is tempting for the Europeans to align with the US and Israel against Iran in this context. Few tears will be shed by anyone over the humbling of one of the most violent and nasty regimes on the planet. And it is tempting to see weakening a Russian ally as a means of weaking Russia.  But the latter point misunderstands the nature of the Russian-Iran-NK-PRC axis generally, and more specifically Iran's role in it from the Russian POV.  The axis is not a traditional military alliance.  Neither Russia nor the PRC are counting on support from the Iranian army in the event of war with the West. Iran's role is a supplier of energy to the PRC, and as a potential denier of energy to Russian and Chinese foes.  But it also serves Russian interest as a valuable combatant in Russia's shadow wars: the vast network of sanctions busters, gray market traders, money launderers, cyber-criminals, drug smugglers, internet troll farms, counterfeiters, and scam artists - fueled by a mafia-espionage complex in which the state fuses together its security services with organized crime networks. No barrage of bunker busters can touch that complex; conflict and ruin only strengthen it.

Viewed coldly from the perspective of European interest, it makes little sense to degrade a significant non-Russian supplier of oil and gas to world markets.  From the perspective of European interest, an Israel-Iran conflict is a best a sideshow and at worst a negative. From the perspective of European interest, Iran poses no meaningful threat to its security but may have resources to offer.*  Will Europe pursue its interests openly, in contradiction to US policy?  No they will not, they will continue to clutch the blanket for now.  But it is still very early in the timeline of the new security architecture to come.



*BTW virtually all the same things could be said from the US perspective.  But there, the complex interactions with Israel influence policy outcomes.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 18, 2025, 06:59:38 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 18, 2025, 06:53:34 PMI don't believe Europe has independently tried to exert influence reliant on power projection essentially since the Suez crisis (?).

Bosnia and Libya.  Then there's France acting solo in the Sahel and the UK solo in Falklands and Sierra Leone.

Since Cold War I'd say that's about right.

Starting since Suez - on the British side I'd add the Konfrontasi and Aden, as well as the great national humiliation of the Cod War. For France after Suez I'd add Algeria and Cameroon. Both played a role in the Nigerian Civil War/Biafran War supporting different parties and to different degrees.

Quote from: Grey Fox on June 19, 2025, 12:51:04 PMTACO is chickening out. Leavitt just said decision in the next 2 weeks.

2 weeks means never so the Americans are not going to get directly involved. Then the length of this war is down to Israeli logistics and bomb stockpiles. :hmm:

If the Americans are not going to get involved now, Israel might back down.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2025, 04:30:54 PMIf the Americans are not going to get involved now, Israel might back down.

If that is the case, that is impressive.

Well I guess Trump doesn't discriminate. He betrays everybody.

So we did enough to discredit ourselves and put Israelis in danger, but not enough to actually achieve of the goals of the attack...whatever they were. Nice.

It is stuff like this that continues to alienate me from my own country. Just a bunch of feckless cowardly bullies with no redeeming qualities. That is what we are.

But we will see.

Trump will release his health care plan before he attacks Iran.  We are fortunate that he is an abject coward.

Went downtown for dinner and drove by a demonstration. They were chanting about Iran. Most of the flags were Persian, I think, but a couple of Israeli flags too - and a few I didn't recognize.

So I think it was anti-regime Persians voicing their support for the Israeli attack on Iran.

Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2025, 07:46:27 PMSo I think it was anti-regime Persians voicing their support for the Israeli attack on Iran.

I doubt that very much. The Iranian community here still has family members living in Iran. Much more likely the demonstration was against the Iranian government - there have been very large demonstrations like that in Vancouver in recent years. Not supporting attacks which will kill their family members.

Who do you think would be waving Persian flags at the Vancouver Art Gallery, if not anti-regime Iranians?

Yeah that doesn't surprise me - Reza Pahlavi has also backed Israel. I think it's a fairly niche taste within the wider diaspora but definitely a thing.

Yeah, just saw they had a banner saying "King Reza Pahlavi" on it.

Quote from: Jacob on June 19, 2025, 08:12:12 PMWho do you think would be waving Persian flags at the Vancouver Art Gallery, if not anti-regime Iranians?

Read my post again

I heard interviews on PBS with Iranians in Iran expressing happiness that Israel was killing senior regime officials.

These the guys?  
(https://i.imgur.com/rAjSCw9.jpeg)

Yup those guys.

I've met a few expat Iranians in my time, never met one who was anything but strongly anti-clerical regime. But that's a very self-selecting population, the vast majority of Iranian expats are expats because of the regime.

I think they are often anti-Israel and American-skeptic though. There have been some on social media that have pretty prominently cheered on attacks on Iran over the past few years, but I also don't know how much any of it matters. The Iranians who fled won't determine Iran's future, and are a relatively small group regardless.

My experience is similar. There is a large community of people who fled after the revolution living in North Vancouver.

I have never met someone who supports the Iranian government, and I have never met anyone belonged to that community who hoped Israel would  attack Iran.

The people I know well are very anxious for the safety of their relatives still in Iran.

Edit, I should add they have been fearing for the safety of their relatives since they arrived in Canada, because of the regime in Iran. And now also because of the attacks by Israel.

Same.
Most Iranians I've met are huge drinkers and really not in line with the clerics. I recall one telling me absolut vodka was cheaper in Tehran than Sweden.
Not just talking refugees here but lots of people just studying abroad.
I can only meeting one Iranian who was particularly religious.
But obviously yeah. I wouldn't exactly be meeting many Iranians who spend all their time at the mosque.

I get the impression feelings are complex.
The regime is disliked but so is Israel. And from those I'm in touch with at least civilians being killed isn't cool on either side.

The ones in the picture didn't seem particularly stressed out about Israel.

Pahlavi legitimists have about as much pull in 2025 Iran as Bourbon legitimists in 2025 France.

Yeah - although slightly insane that Reza Pahlavi apparently addressed a bipartisan group in Congress earlier this week. I'd love to know who. Apparently claiming there's a plan already in place for a post-Islamic Republic Iran that won't require US funding or troops.

I get the differences with 2003, but there are also echoes I find concerning.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 20, 2025, 09:36:40 AMI've met a few expat Iranians in my time, never met one who was anything but strongly anti-clerical regime. But that's a very self-selecting population, the vast majority of Iranian expats are expats because of the regime.

My boss is an Iranian exile (though he strongly prefers the ethnonym Persian and often corrects people--he associates 'Iran'/'Iranian' with the current regime).  He insists that if the current government fell, there would be rejoicing in the streets and that most people despise the government, they are just afraid to stand up to it.

His father in law still lives in Tehran and I imagine he's quite worried for his safety at this point.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 20, 2025, 11:28:14 AMPahlavi legitimists have about as much pull in 2025 Iran as Bourbon legitimists in 2025 France.

So who has as much pull as the Orléanists in France, in Iran?  :P

Quote from: Caliga on June 20, 2025, 11:34:30 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 20, 2025, 09:36:40 AMI've met a few expat Iranians in my time, never met one who was anything but strongly anti-clerical regime. But that's a very self-selecting population, the vast majority of Iranian expats are expats because of the regime.

My boss is an Iranian exile (though he strongly prefers the ethnonym Persian and often corrects people--he associates 'Iran'/'Iranian' with the current regime).  He insists that if the current government fell, there would be rejoicing in the streets and that most people despise the government, they are just afraid to stand up to it.

His father in law still lives in Tehran and I imagine he's quite worried for his safety at this point.

A ton of people do hate the regime and there would be much rejoicing if it fell.

But is it the majority of the people? No idea.

And while the opposition might agree the current regime sucks, who knows if they agree on much else.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 20, 2025, 11:43:59 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 20, 2025, 11:28:14 AMPahlavi legitimists have about as much pull in 2025 Iran as Bourbon legitimists in 2025 France.

So who has as much pull as the Orléanists in France, in Iran?  :P

Farsi speaking Time Cube cultists. 

Yeah I didn't mean to imply they represented any particular proportion of Persians or Iranians, expatriate or not. It was much more of a "huh, how about that" type thing. I haven't discussed the situation with any of the Persian folks I know, but my assumption lines up with what CC and Josq are reporting from their friends.

My wife and I have some friends where the husband is Jewish and the wife is Persian. When it's come up, it's been clear that they have different perspectives on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I can only imagine that this will be similar for them.

Well, Iranian expats and their families supportive of Israel bombing Iran would be like German expats and their families supporting the war against Germany in the 1940's.

After WW2, the USA poured billions of dollars in to help reconstruct Germany and provide critical needed humanitarian aid and civil infrastructure.

Somehow I don't think this is included in Israeli postwar planning.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 20, 2025, 02:07:27 PMAfter WW2, the USA poured billions of dollars in to help reconstruct Germany and provide critical needed humanitarian aid and civil infrastructure.

Somehow I don't think this is included in Israeli postwar planning.

You think that was on the top of everyone's mind while they went to war?  I'm going to kill all these people, including family members but it's okay cause the survivors occupation government will feed all the survivors?

Again total aside but I'd really recommend Harald Jähner's Aftermath on the immediate post-war in Germany. Covers some of this - including some of the German origin soldiers in all the Western allied armies who played a role in the post-war years (often, but not exclusively, Jewish).

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 20, 2025, 02:07:27 PMAfter WW2, the USA poured billions of dollars in to help reconstruct Germany and provide critical needed humanitarian aid and civil infrastructure.

Somehow I don't think this is included in Israeli postwar planning.

Did we?  I thought Germany was excluded from Marshall Plan support.

West Germany was the third largest recipient - after the UK and France. That's putting aside the huge costs of actually occupying and reconstructing the American sector of Germany as well as dealing with the millions of different categories of displaced persons, even before Marshall's speech in 48 (in fairness often balanced across the UN and with other allied participants - the UK started rationing bread for the first time after the war in order to send food aid to their sector of Germany).

I still believe the Morgenthau plan would have been better.  -_-

On that - saw the Jerusalem Post editorial to Trump a couple of days ago which is a little Morgenthau-ish:

QuoteTrump needs to take decisive action against Iran
Mr. US President Donald Trump: It's time to match words with decisive action.

• Embrace regime change as a policy. Iran's leadership has shown time and again that its ideology is impervious to deterrence; military strikes only feed its propaganda. You should publicly declare that the Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Khamenei is an outlaw regime and that its removal is a US strategic objective.
• Sharpen economic warfare to knife-edge precision. Existing sanctions must be intensified to target every revenue stream sustaining the regime. Freeze all assets tied to the IRGC and its Quds Force, sanction the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and levy secondary sanctions on foreign banks and firms transacting with Tehran.
• Ramp up covert operations inside Iran. If Tehran welcomes violence, let it find the fight at home. Expand cyber offensives to disable IRGC command-and-control networks, disrupt missile guidance systems, and interfere with nuclear control software.
• Designate the IRGC a foreign terrorist organization and pursue its global networks relentlessly. Force banks worldwide to choose between processing dollar transactions and facilitating money laundering by the IRGC.
• Project overwhelming military readiness. Surge US carrier strike groups into the Persian Gulf, pre-position Aegis destroyers in the Arabian Sea, and deploy long-range bombers to deter any Iranian reprisal.
• Forge a Middle East coalition for Iran's partition. Encourage long-term plans for a federalized or partitioned Iran, recognizing that Khamenei's theocratic regime cannot be reformed. Offer security guarantees to Sunni, Kurdish, and Balochi minority regions willing to break away.

Khamenei's genocidal rhetoric demands a radical response. A half-measure of sanctions and occasional airstrikes will only embolden Tehran's hard-liners and lengthen the regime's lifespan.

Mr. President, this extreme theocracy needs to fall. Make its destruction as explicit a policy as the defeat of Nazi Germany or Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Harness every tool of American power, be it diplomatic, economic, covert, or militarized, to dismantle Ayatollah Khamenei's regime before it can realize its vow to erase Israel and America from the map. Only then can the region breathe free of tyranny and terror, and the cancer of radical theocracy be excised once and for all.

I think Trump will really enjoy this proposal. It makes him out to be a veritable emperor who can reorganize the world at his whim, as lesser kings line up to entreat him or quail with fear at the prospect of his displeasure.

As such, I think Trump will seriously consider the proposal and probably talk about it too.

But I doubt he'll do it. He lacks the character and mental fortitude to follow through on pretty much anything, much less something as momentous as this. His career and being is all about bloviating, posturing, and then not following through - benefitting from stabbing people who rely on him and took him at his words.

Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2025, 05:51:43 PMI think Trump will really enjoy this proposal. It makes him out to be a veritable emperor who can reorganize the world at his whim, as lesser kings line up to entreat him or quail with fear at the prospect of his displeasure.

As such, I think Trump will seriously consider the proposal and probably talk about it too.

But I doubt he'll do it. He lacks the character and mental fortitude to follow through on pretty much anything, much less something as momentous as this. His career and being is all about bloviating, posturing, and then not following through - benefitting from stabbing people who rely on him and took him at his words.

he'll probably inform us in two weeks that he'll inform us in two weeks

Quote from: Zoupa on June 20, 2025, 05:05:07 PMI still believe the Morgenthau plan would have been better.  -_-

No Mercy for Fascists!*

*Arabs are incapable of fascism.

I'm sure there's tremendous pressure on Trump right now, between the Israelis/Saudis on one side and Putin/base cowardice on the other.

Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2025, 12:32:07 PM

Quote from: Caliga on June 20, 2025, 11:34:30 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 20, 2025, 09:36:40 AMI've met a few expat Iranians in my time, never met one who was anything but strongly anti-clerical regime. But that's a very self-selecting population, the vast majority of Iranian expats are expats because of the regime.

My boss is an Iranian exile (though he strongly prefers the ethnonym Persian and often corrects people--he associates 'Iran'/'Iranian' with the current regime).  He insists that if the current government fell, there would be rejoicing in the streets and that most people despise the government, they are just afraid to stand up to it.

His father in law still lives in Tehran and I imagine he's quite worried for his safety at this point.

A ton of people do hate the regime and there would be much rejoicing if it fell.

But is it the majority of the people? No idea.

And while the opposition might agree the current regime sucks, who knows if they agree on much else.

The vibe I get is there would be widespread rejoicing in the streets of Tehran and maybe other cities. Though more rural areas....

Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2025, 05:51:43 PMI think Trump will really enjoy this proposal. It makes him out to be a veritable emperor who can reorganize the world at his whim, as lesser kings line up to entreat him or quail with fear at the prospect of his displeasure.

As such, I think Trump will seriously consider the proposal and probably talk about it too.

But I doubt he'll do it. He lacks the character and mental fortitude to follow through on pretty much anything, much less something as momentous as this. His career and being is all about bloviating, posturing, and then not following through - benefitting from stabbing people who rely on him and took him at his words.

I think if were to be in for regime change, it'd be something stupid like putting in the Shah's son. That'd fit his demeanor more than an ethnic partition (which is also likely a stupid idea).

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 20, 2025, 07:12:24 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2025, 05:51:43 PMI think Trump will really enjoy this proposal. It makes him out to be a veritable emperor who can reorganize the world at his whim, as lesser kings line up to entreat him or quail with fear at the prospect of his displeasure.

As such, I think Trump will seriously consider the proposal and probably talk about it too.

But I doubt he'll do it. He lacks the character and mental fortitude to follow through on pretty much anything, much less something as momentous as this. His career and being is all about bloviating, posturing, and then not following through - benefitting from stabbing people who rely on him and took him at his words.

I think if were to be in for regime change, it'd be something stupid like putting in the Shah's son. That'd fit his demeanor more than an ethnic partition (which is also likely a stupid idea).

He'll have Jared Kushner crowned as Shah.

Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2025, 05:51:43 PMI think Trump will really enjoy this proposal. It makes him out to be a veritable emperor who can reorganize the world at his whim, as lesser kings line up to entreat him or quail with fear at the prospect of his displeasure.

As such, I think Trump will seriously consider the proposal and probably talk about it too.

But I doubt he'll do it. He lacks the character and mental fortitude to follow through on pretty much anything, much less something as momentous as this. His career and being is all about bloviating, posturing, and then not following through - benefitting from stabbing people who rely on him and took him at his words.

A smart editorial board would encourage Trump to embrace the Khamenei regime, since Everything Trump Touches Dies.

Quote from: grumbler on June 20, 2025, 08:10:17 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2025, 05:51:43 PMI think Trump will really enjoy this proposal. It makes him out to be a veritable emperor who can reorganize the world at his whim, as lesser kings line up to entreat him or quail with fear at the prospect of his displeasure.

As such, I think Trump will seriously consider the proposal and probably talk about it too.

But I doubt he'll do it. He lacks the character and mental fortitude to follow through on pretty much anything, much less something as momentous as this. His career and being is all about bloviating, posturing, and then not following through - benefitting from stabbing people who rely on him and took him at his words.

A smart editorial board would encourage Trump to embrace the Khamenei regime, since Everything Trump Touches Dies.

ETTD doesn't make a good acronym like TACO has.  I'd recommend Trump Inevitably Kills It.

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 20, 2025, 08:12:04 PM

Quote from: grumbler on June 20, 2025, 08:10:17 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2025, 05:51:43 PMI think Trump will really enjoy this proposal. It makes him out to be a veritable emperor who can reorganize the world at his whim, as lesser kings line up to entreat him or quail with fear at the prospect of his displeasure.

As such, I think Trump will seriously consider the proposal and probably talk about it too.

But I doubt he'll do it. He lacks the character and mental fortitude to follow through on pretty much anything, much less something as momentous as this. His career and being is all about bloviating, posturing, and then not following through - benefitting from stabbing people who rely on him and took him at his words.

A smart editorial board would encourage Trump to embrace the Khamenei regime, since Everything Trump Touches Dies.

ETTD doesn't make a good acronym like TACO has.  I'd recommend Trump Inevitably Kills It.

ETTD is a long-standing phrase, though.  It dates to his first presidency (in a Rick Wilson book with that title).

Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2025, 06:41:34 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on June 20, 2025, 05:05:07 PMI still believe the Morgenthau plan would have been better.  -_-

No Mercy for Fascists!*

*Arabs are incapable of fascism.

What?

Quote from: Zoupa on June 21, 2025, 01:54:15 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2025, 06:41:34 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on June 20, 2025, 05:05:07 PMI still believe the Morgenthau plan would have been better.  -_-

No Mercy for Fascists!*

*Arabs are incapable of fascism.

What?

You wouldn't suggest a Morgenthau plan for Gaza...

Raz, if you want to discuss Gaza do it it in the thread devoted to that purpose.

Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2025, 11:03:13 AMRaz, if you want to discuss Gaza do it it in the thread devoted to that purpose.

I am just noting that for some people famine is acceptable for some populations but not others.  The idea that some ethnic groups are more worthy of life than others.  It seems to be a fairly popular view point.  There is probably a word for that in French or Danish.  I dunno.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2025, 02:03:10 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on June 21, 2025, 01:54:15 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2025, 06:41:34 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on June 20, 2025, 05:05:07 PMI still believe the Morgenthau plan would have been better.  -_-

No Mercy for Fascists!*

*Arabs are incapable of fascism.

What?

You wouldn't suggest a Morgenthau plan for Gaza...

Get help dude.

B2s have taken off from US base and are headed across the pacific. Where they stop nobody knows

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/21/world/iran-israel-trump?unlocked_article_code=1.Qk8.fIly.LcrO3yUA_yQ0&smid=nytcore-android-share

Looks like we know now.

So now the question is how far is this going to go?

He says no boots. But he says a lot of things. Some bombs going off in America or something and that probably changes quickly.

Quote from: Bauer on June 21, 2025, 08:04:51 PMSo now the question is how far is this going to go?

My guess is: quite a bit farther.

Open questions in my mind:

• Absent a strong Iranian response, how far is Israel going to go?
• Absent a strong Iranian response, how far is the US going to go?
• How easy is it for Iran to strike at American military bases?

I suppose it's possible the Iranian regime will totter and fall in response to this bombing campaign, but personally I wouldn't bet on it.

This leaves me thinking that Iran will feel the need to retaliate at least semi-proportionally. If they are powerless to do so now - and it seems like they may be - it only means they'll bide their time.

My guess is we'll see Iranian-sponsored attempts at major terrorist attacks against US and Israeli targets in the not too distant future. I expect they'll have an easier time against US targets.

Quote from: HVC on June 21, 2025, 08:12:00 PMHe says no boots. But he says a lot of things. Some bombs going off in America or something and that probably changes quickly.

Yeah, the question is how willing Iran is to poke the US.

A third country registered container ship getting close to the US and launching a whole bunch of drones at targets on the American coast (say if there are any nuclear plants) seems reasonably doable in a timeframe of a few months for a country like Iran, I'd expect. The question is whether they'd be willing to provoke that kind of response.

Maybe that's not what Iran will do (or maybe it's not possible for them), but I think it'd be uncharacteristic for Iran to not try to retaliate one way or the other.

Hmmm... I wonder if they'd want to make it personal. How vulnerable are various Trump properties, family members, and interests across the globe?

Another thought on my mind, what if this action actually does prove decisive and neuters Iran or even leads to regime change.  That would give Trump a massive win and could accelerate the move towards maga authoritarianism in the US...

Or if it becomes a quagmire maybe that leads to maga civil war and disintegration of the movement.

It'd be really great to get both the end of a Theocracy and the implosion/explosion of the MAGA movement.

Quote from: Zoupa on June 21, 2025, 04:33:51 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2025, 02:03:10 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on June 21, 2025, 01:54:15 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 20, 2025, 06:41:34 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on June 20, 2025, 05:05:07 PMI still believe the Morgenthau plan would have been better.  -_-

No Mercy for Fascists!*

*Arabs are incapable of fascism.

What?

You wouldn't suggest a Morgenthau plan for Gaza...

Get help dude.

I'm asking for help!  Why are is famine acceptable for one ethnicity and not another!  I don't understand!

One more off topic post from you in this thread Raz and you're getting a ban.

Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2025, 08:23:36 PM

Quote from: Bauer on June 21, 2025, 08:04:51 PMSo now the question is how far is this going to go?

My guess is: quite a bit farther.

Open questions in my mind:

• Absent a strong Iranian response, how far is Israel going to go?
• Absent a strong Iranian response, how far is the US going to go?
• How easy is it for Iran to strike at American military bases?

I suppose it's possible the Iranian regime will totter and fall in response to this bombing campaign, but personally I wouldn't bet on it.

This leaves me thinking that Iran will feel the need to retaliate at least semi-proportionally. If they are powerless to do so now - and it seems like they may be - it only means they'll bide their time.

My guess is we'll see Iranian-sponsored attempts at major terrorist attacks against US and Israeli targets in the not too distant future. I expect they'll have an easier time against US targets.

I think the Iranians have to respond with as much power as they can.  Failure to respond with sufficient strength left them open to attack from Israel last time.  If they don't fight back they probably won't be able to do so in the future.  For one thing their ability to strike back is being serious degraded right now.  Second, a good part of their legitimacy is based on opposing the US and Israel.  They can't just let this go on without losing their legitimacy.  I imagine they will hit US bases in the Gulf, but beyond that who knows?  We've pushed them into a corner, they are running out of things to lose.

The Iranians hallmark is terrorism, but setting up truck bombs in third countries could provoke a violent response.  Still, I wouldn't want to be in Trump tower Istanbul anytime soon.  One possibility is send commandos to attack to kill patrons of his golf club in Dubai.  Brutal, but it sends a message.

I don't know, hit squad seems bit more of a petulant response then one I assume they'd want to make. show of force it doesn't scream. That being said I wouldn't be on an American flight for a while. A Middle East base attack or a drone swarm like Jacob said would make more sense. Assuming they have the capability to do either. If not then I guess terrorism make more sense.

I'm actually thinking that's about it for US involvement. Trump blew some stuff up, Iran will shoot a few missiles at our bases, both sides will claim victory. Trump doesn't want to get pulled into a war, and Iran doesn't want the US to get pulled in either.

But maybe I'm just being optimistic.

Oh, I'm sure there will be a Middle East base attack.  They did that with Suelimani, but that obviously was not a deterrent.  They need to be able to send a message that they will not be pushed around, both to the US and to their own people.  Hitting a Trump property sends message that enemy is Trump and not the US (and the West in general).  That might be politically useful.  Shooting up a bunch of rich people at a resort my actually win them sympathy.  The point is, they need to do something dramatic.  If they don't, they run a real risk of losing legitimacy. 

Yeah ok. Let's do this shit again.

Obama's minister was right.

What'd he say?

Quote from: HVC on June 21, 2025, 11:52:05 PMWhat'd he say?

He was the 'God damn America' guy.

Quote from: Bauer on June 21, 2025, 09:02:07 PMAnother thought on my mind, what if this action actually does prove decisive and neuters Iran or even leads to regime change.  That would give Trump a massive win and could accelerate the move towards maga authoritarianism in the US...

Or if it becomes a quagmire maybe that leads to maga civil war and disintegration of the movement.

I don't see any possible path from busting nuclear sites to regime change.

Well yeah anyone rising against the regime now can be easily painted as being in league with a foreign enemy.

On the other hand, the regime's efforts to become a regional and nuclear power have failed spectacularly. Syria lost, Hezbollah knocked out for now and in a very humiliating way too. Well done, Israel.

Also I think it made sense for the US to use this chance to destroy Iran's nuclear program instead of letting them build it back up

6 bunker busters dropped on 3 targets.

Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2025, 11:42:38 PMYeah ok. Let's do this shit again.

Obama's minister was right.

Well, I'm kinda hoping that this will trigger a nuclear war before I run out of money.  Or I find someone who will hire me.  Whichever.

Listening to Rest is Politics losing their marbles over the strikes.

One thing by them why is nobody except for the UN chief is condemning it.

I think they are missing a very likely explanation: nobody minds it happened.

The people who make the rest is politics podcast should read more newspapers.  That way they would've realized that there are a large number of people in the world who mind what happened.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2025, 08:39:54 AMThe people who make the rest is politics podcast should read more newspapers.  That way they would've realized that there are a large number of people in the world who mind what happened.

They meant European leaders and their conclusion was they are afraid of Trump and I am saying that in addition to that they are not too unhappy about Russia-ally Iran getting removed from the nuclear chess table

There's been a lot of talk lately about the need for more nations to develop nukes in light of America going insane.

Sure Iran was a pre existing issue. But still. Might help serve as a lesson there.

I have to suspect though that Trump will be looking to give concessions somewhere to Putin in exchange for him staying quiet ok this.
It really is quite the tangled messy Web of relations in the middle east.

I realise the grave implications of the US just striking like this without doing the "gather a coalition of the willing" dance, no doubt somebody other than Trump would have gone about this a better way. But first of all the ship with the international order has sailed when the Russians occupied Crimea in 2014 and the international order did nothing. Secondly, Iran's nuclear ambitions could only have ended (IF they have ended) in two ways: them getting nukes or there being a confrontation. There was zero reason for Iran to earnestly give up their program for good.

https://x.com/allenanalysis/status/1936773660687130836

QuoteBREAKING 🚨: Iran's Parliament has officially voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, per state\-run Press TV\.

That's 20% of the world's oil supply now held hostage and the global economy just got handed a live grenade.

Buckle up.

And now US goes cap in hand to China for help


https://www.reuters.com/world/china/us-urges-china-dissuade-iran-closing-strait-hormuz-2025-06-22/

Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2025, 10:16:24 AMThere was zero reason for Iran to earnestly give up their program for good.

There were plenty of reasons and they did give up their program. I am not falling for this dumbass propaganda again.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 22, 2025, 10:28:03 AMhttps://x.com/allenanalysis/status/1936773660687130836

QuoteBREAKING 🚨: Iran's Parliament has officially voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, per state\-run Press TV\.

That's 20% of the world's oil supply now held hostage and the global economy just got handed a live grenade.

Buckle up.

I saw the energy people I follow noting that lots of those tankers that had been held back were doing a rush to get through Hormuz earlier today - something like 50 tankers going hell for leather to get out of the Gulf.

QuoteListening to Rest is Politics losing their marbles over the strikes.

One thing by them why is nobody except for the UN chief is condemning it.

I think they are missing a very likely explanation: nobody minds it happened.

I've had to stop listening - they annoy me too much :lol: :ph34r:

Quote from: Valmy on June 22, 2025, 11:35:38 AMThere were plenty of reasons and they did give up their program. I am not falling for this dumbass propaganda again.

They did not give up their program.

Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2025, 09:19:21 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2025, 08:39:54 AMThe people who make the rest is politics podcast should read more newspapers.  That way they would've realized that there are a large number of people in the world who mind what happened.

They meant European leaders and their conclusion was they are afraid of Trump and I am saying that in addition to that they are not too unhappy about Russia-ally Iran getting removed from the nuclear chess table

Amongst the European leaders, look at how the French reacted, compare and contrast with the UK, and you will get a good sense of who fears Trump's retribution for criticizing him.

Then look at Australia, Saudi Arabia and others who might have been more likely to be supportive, but there is a lot of criticism.

Why? Because it's a really dumb, poorly thought out thing to do for a long list of reasons.

Quote from: Tamas on June 22, 2025, 10:16:24 AMI realise the grave implications of the US just striking like this without doing the "gather a coalition of the willing" dance, no doubt somebody other than Trump would have gone about this a better way. But first of all the ship with the international order has sailed when the Russians occupied Crimea in 2014 and the international order did nothing. Secondly, Iran's nuclear ambitions could only have ended (IF they have ended) in two ways: them getting nukes or there being a confrontation. There was zero reason for Iran to earnestly give up their program for good.

What are you talking about?  Lots of assertions there.  Any support for your views?

Right now I think everyone is trying to come to some sort of consensus on what to say.  I think you will see more forceful statements when Europe sees what Iran does.  They obviously don't want to be too pro Iran if Iran turns around and cuts of their oil supplies, likewise they don't want to be too anti-Trump if believe they require him to protect their shipping.

Heard on NPR that von der Leyden has called for de-escalation but also Iran can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

I was kind of surprised by that.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2025, 02:40:25 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 22, 2025, 11:35:38 AMThere were plenty of reasons and they did give up their program. I am not falling for this dumbass propaganda again.

They did not give up their program.

US intelligence said they did. Assessment dated Apr2025.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2025, 03:44:53 PMAmongst the European leaders, look at how the French reacted, compare and contrast with the UK, and you will get a good sense of who fears Trump's retribution for criticizing him.

I think this is just vibes. I mean what difference do you mean? They've issued a joint statement (with Germany as the E3). Starmer's held calls with Trump, the Sultan of Oman and the King Abdullah of Jordan, Macron has spoken with the President of Iran and the MBS, Merz has called Erdogan and the Emir of Qatar. The message in all of the statements from all governments on that are basically the same and it is broadly a holding message.

As on dealing with Trump's policy on Ukraine, I don't think you could get a cigarette paper between them. As I say I think it's fairly passive and ambiguous at best, reiterating that Iran mustn't get nukes, calling for de-escalation and encouraging Iran to continue talks.

QuoteThen look at Australia, Saudi Arabia and others who might have been more likely to be supportive, but there is a lot of criticism.

The statement by Albanese's government is very similar to the E3 and has been pretty strongly criticised by the Australian left for being so ambiguous, including former aides to the Foreign Minister.

I agree on Saudi - but I think there the war in Gaza has really scuppered the Israeli-Saudi rapprochement in the short term.

QuoteI realise the grave implications of the US just striking like this without doing the "gather a coalition of the willing" dance, no doubt somebody other than Trump would have gone about this a better way. But first of all the ship with the international order has sailed when the Russians occupied Crimea in 2014 and the international order did nothing. Secondly, Iran's nuclear ambitions could only have ended (IF they have ended) in two ways: them getting nukes or there being a confrontation. There was zero reason for Iran to earnestly give up their program for good.

I don't agree entirely - I think the JCPOA was working until Trump blew it up in his first term.

I think the bigger lesson is the only protection is to have nukes and if you're going for it get there quickly. I suspect that is something being considered right now in Riyadh and Ankara.

QuoteHeard on NPR that von der Leyden has called for de-escalation but also Iran can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

I was kind of surprised by that.

It's the same as the E3 line - ambiguous at best.

I think German attitudes are a very important factor here. Whether that's Scholz calling Israel's security a staatsraison of Germany which is fairly big (and we've seen very strong clampdowns on pro-Palestinian demonstrations/speech), or Merz in response to Israel launching attacks on Iran stating that they were doing "dirty work for us all". I think if it was just the US, the position might be different.

if Turkey goes for nukes, Greece will too. Inevitably.

Quote from: Zoupa on June 22, 2025, 04:19:57 PMUS intelligence said they did. Assessment dated Apr2025.

What I heard on NPR maybe yesterday was that US intelligence disagreed with Israel's claim that Iran had started speeding up enrichment of uranium from 20% to 60%.

Is that what you are calling "abandoning their nuclear weapon program," or do you actually mean that US intelligence said they abandoned their nuclear weapon program?

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 22, 2025, 04:21:52 PMIt's the same as the E3 line - ambiguous at best.

I don't see what's ambiguous about saying Iran can not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

However, NPR gave me a paraphrase/characterization so the original statement might have been softened to ambiguity.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 22, 2025, 04:21:52 PMI think German attitudes are a very important factor here. Whether that's Scholz calling Israel's security a staatsraison of Germany which is fairly big (and we've seen very strong clampdowns on pro-Palestinian demonstrations/speech), or Merz in response to Israel launching attacks on Iran stating that they were doing "dirty work for us all". I think if it was just the US, the position might be different.

Germany does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. For reasons of Israeli security, general non-proliferation and also for European security. Iranian missiles can reach here.

Using hard power to achieve foreign policy goals is alien to our political discourse though, although it is getting more acceptable.

So when Merz said Israel (or now Trump) are doing the dirty work, it is an endorsement of the ends, even if there is an instinctive rejection of the means.

As far as making a difference between the US and Israel: obviously it matters. Israel is really threatened by Iranian nuclear ambitions, the US itself isn't. So Israel has more of a casus belli.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2025, 04:40:00 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on June 22, 2025, 04:19:57 PMUS intelligence said they did. Assessment dated Apr2025.

What I heard on NPR maybe yesterday was that US intelligence disagreed with Israel's claim that Iran had started speeding up enrichment of uranium from 20% to 60%.

Is that what you are calling "abandoning their nuclear weapon program," or do you actually mean that US intelligence said they abandoned their nuclear weapon program?

US intelligence said they were 3 years away if they decided to restart uranium enrichment, which in Apr2025, they had not. Obviously no one wants proliferation, but let's not get hoodwinked yet again with fantastical claims.

Quote from: Zoupa on June 22, 2025, 05:17:38 PMlet's not get hoodwinked yet again with fantastical claims.

amen

 :rolleyes:

I see mission creep has already begun, with Trump talking about regime change. Good luck, yanks.

Quote from: Zoupa on June 22, 2025, 05:35:06 PM:rolleyes:

Every time I see this emoji I know I've won because the other person has run out of arguments.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2025, 05:46:16 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on June 22, 2025, 05:35:06 PM:rolleyes:

Every time I see this emoji I know I've won because the other person has run out of arguments.

Here, have another win  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Zoupa on June 22, 2025, 05:59:11 PMHere, have another win  :rolleyes:

It wouldn't be right to count the same victory twice. 

Semantics are the last refuge of the incompetents, after all.

Zoupa, don't be another victim of American class war. Anticléricalisme et la fin d'une theocracie est le saint Graal. Peu importe comment.

Je m'en bat les couilles des mollahs Iraniens, t'inquiète. Faire chier et moquer les ricains, ça reste quand même dans mon ADN :lol:

Quote from: Zoupa on June 22, 2025, 06:08:22 PMSemantics are the last refuge of the incompetents, after all.

Oh goody, we get to play again.

To clarify, are you claiming the only real distinction between South Africa, which "abandoned its nuclear program" and decommissioned its nukes, and Iran is a semantic one?

Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2025, 06:12:55 PMZoupa, don't be another victim of American class war. Anticléricalisme et la fin d'une theocracie est le saint Graal. Peu importe comment.

USSR was anticlerical too. Secular nations can suck just as bad as any other :P

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 22, 2025, 04:21:52 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2025, 03:44:53 PMAmongst the European leaders, look at how the French reacted, compare and contrast with the UK, and you will get a good sense of who fears Trump's retribution for criticizing him.

I think this is just vibes. I mean what difference do you mean? They've issued a joint statement (with Germany as the E3). Starmer's held calls with Trump, the Sultan of Oman and the King Abdullah of Jordan, Macron has spoken with the President of Iran and the MBS, Merz has called Erdogan and the Emir of Qatar. The message in all of the statements from all governments on that are basically the same and it is broadly a holding message.

As on dealing with Trump's policy on Ukraine, I don't think you could get a cigarette paper between them. As I say I think it's fairly passive and ambiguous at best, reiterating that Iran mustn't get nukes, calling for de-escalation and encouraging Iran to continue talks.

QuoteThen look at Australia, Saudi Arabia and others who might have been more likely to be supportive, but there is a lot of criticism.

The statement by Albanese's government is very similar to the E3 and has been pretty strongly criticised by the Australian left for being so ambiguous, including former aides to the Foreign Minister.

I agree on Saudi - but I think there the war in Gaza has really scuppered the Israeli-Saudi rapprochement in the short term.

QuoteI realise the grave implications of the US just striking like this without doing the "gather a coalition of the willing" dance, no doubt somebody other than Trump would have gone about this a better way. But first of all the ship with the international order has sailed when the Russians occupied Crimea in 2014 and the international order did nothing. Secondly, Iran's nuclear ambitions could only have ended (IF they have ended) in two ways: them getting nukes or there being a confrontation. There was zero reason for Iran to earnestly give up their program for good.

I don't agree entirely - I think the JCPOA was working until Trump blew it up in his first term.

I think the bigger lesson is the only protection is to have nukes and if you're going for it get there quickly. I suspect that is something being considered right now in Riyadh and Ankara.

QuoteHeard on NPR that von der Leyden has called for de-escalation but also Iran can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

I was kind of surprised by that.

It's the same as the E3 line - ambiguous at best.

I think German attitudes are a very important factor here. Whether that's Scholz calling Israel's security a staatsraison of Germany which is fairly big (and we've seen very strong clampdowns on pro-Palestinian demonstrations/speech), or Merz in response to Israel launching attacks on Iran stating that they were doing "dirty work for us all". I think if it was just the US, the position might be different.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 22, 2025, 04:21:52 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2025, 03:44:53 PMAmongst the European leaders, look at how the French reacted, compare and contrast with the UK, and you will get a good sense of who fears Trump's retribution for criticizing him.

I think this is just vibes. I mean what difference do you mean? They've issued a joint statement (with Germany as the E3). Starmer's held calls with Trump, the Sultan of Oman and the King Abdullah of Jordan, Macron has spoken with the President of Iran and the MBS, Merz has called Erdogan and the Emir of Qatar. The message in all of the statements from all governments on that are basically the same and it is broadly a holding message.

As on dealing with Trump's policy on Ukraine, I don't think you could get a cigarette paper between them. As I say I think it's fairly passive and ambiguous at best, reiterating that Iran mustn't get nukes, calling for de-escalation and encouraging Iran to continue talks.

QuoteThen look at Australia, Saudi Arabia and others who might have been more likely to be supportive, but there is a lot of criticism.

The statement by Albanese's government is very similar to the E3 and has been pretty strongly criticised by the Australian left for being so ambiguous, including former aides to the Foreign Minister.

I agree on Saudi - but I think there the war in Gaza has really scuppered the Israeli-Saudi rapprochement in the short term.

QuoteI realise the grave implications of the US just striking like this without doing the "gather a coalition of the willing" dance, no doubt somebody other than Trump would have gone about this a better way. But first of all the ship with the international order has sailed when the Russians occupied Crimea in 2014 and the international order did nothing. Secondly, Iran's nuclear ambitions could only have ended (IF they have ended) in two ways: them getting nukes or there being a confrontation. There was zero reason for Iran to earnestly give up their program for good.

I don't agree entirely - I think the JCPOA was working until Trump blew it up in his first term.

I think the bigger lesson is the only protection is to have nukes and if you're going for it get there quickly. I suspect that is something being considered right now in Riyadh and Ankara.

QuoteHeard on NPR that von der Leyden has called for de-escalation but also Iran can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

I was kind of surprised by that.

It's the same as the E3 line - ambiguous at best.

I think German attitudes are a very important factor here. Whether that's Scholz calling Israel's security a staatsraison of Germany which is fairly big (and we've seen very strong clampdowns on pro-Palestinian demonstrations/speech), or Merz in response to Israel launching attacks on Iran stating that they were doing "dirty work for us all". I think if it was just the US, the position might be different.

If you want to discount what is being said as "vibes", there isn't much to discuss is there?

Tulsi Gabbard, the US DNI, testified in front of Congress in April that Iran was not producing weapons-grade uranium, and that Khamenei had not authorized the development of nuclear weapons.

Obviously, Bibi's Operation Urgent Manhood changes the calculations.

What's so frustrating is that this is all so unnecessary. If Trump hadn't been as big a moron in his first term as he is now, the JCPOA would still be in place and the facts could be verified on the ground.

I get the feeling that if Iran is able to pull off retaliation that hurts, this is going to escalate.  If it's just the straight blockaded then hopefully it just fizzles out over time.

But what is Israel going to do now... do they press on for regime change and pull Trump into that too?

I can't help but feel that Iran has to react strongly for domestic stability, that refuses to make dramatic action would result in a humiliation they can ill afford.  It feels someone like WW1 where some countries, such as Russia and the Ottoman empire, felt that going to war would actually stabilize their countries.

It would really help if the Israelis stopped attacking Iran.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2025, 09:40:49 PMI can't help but feel that Iran has to react strongly for domestic stability, that refuses to make dramatic action would result in a humiliation they can ill afford.  It feels someone like WW1 where some countries, such as Russia and the Ottoman empire, felt that going to war would actually stabilize their countries.

It would really help if the Israelis stopped attacking Iran.

Hilarious, wasn't Bibi your hero all of two days ago?

If Israel forces regime change, it will be the worst thing to happen to it since the original Iranian Revolution.

The UK and France really should have used better cartographers.

Quote from: mongers on June 22, 2025, 09:51:03 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2025, 09:40:49 PMI can't help but feel that Iran has to react strongly for domestic stability, that refuses to make dramatic action would result in a humiliation they can ill afford.  It feels someone like WW1 where some countries, such as Russia and the Ottoman empire, felt that going to war would actually stabilize their countries.

It would really help if the Israelis stopped attacking Iran.

Hilarious, wasn't Bibi your hero all of two days ago?

No, I have consistently said I don't like Netanyahu, that Netanyahu is a crook, that he is a bad guy.  I have noticed that many posters have not actually bothered to read my posts, but would instead that simply insert what my opinion should be.  I understand that much of what I say makes people uncomfortable, but rather than fabricate a more comforting concept I would advise you to actually read what I wrote and maybe try to understand why that makes you uncomfortable.   :)

I wonder if Netanyahu and Putin realise how lucky they are to have a fool like Trump in the White House.

So anyways, yes I don't want to be duped again like with the WMDs in 2003. I even less want to think Trump has some kind of strategic thinking behind this or anything else, since I am sure he does not. I am just a bit puzzled by what seems like international silence over this (except for Russia's, they have good reasons to hide their chuckles). Maybe it's just because it was the weekend.

Quote from: Zoupa on June 22, 2025, 05:36:23 PMI see mission creep has already begun, with Trump talking about regime change. Good luck, yanks.

And all the shit will land in europes lap again. I suggest sending all refugees to the US.

Quote from: Tamas on June 23, 2025, 12:24:02 AMI wonder if Netanyahu and Putin realise how lucky they are to have a fool like Trump in the White House.

Of course they do. 

Quote from: Tamas on June 23, 2025, 12:34:39 AMSo anyways, yes I don't want to be duped again like with the WMDs in 2003. I even less want to think Trump has some kind of strategic thinking behind this or anything else, since I am sure he does not. I am just a bit puzzled by what seems like international silence over this (except for Russia's, they have good reasons to hide their chuckles). Maybe it's just because it was the weekend.

I am even more surprised that you have not heard the negative reactions of pretty much every nation saying that war is not the answer and that the best way to prevent around from developing a nuclear program is through diplomacy.

I think Israel since it has total air superiority over Iran and has Hizbollah literally gelded since Grim Beeper and the Hamas remnants living their best life in the ruins of Gaza, will basically hammer the regime as hard as they can. :hmm:


Khamenei better keep a flexible sleep schedule...

The most grimly fun meme I've seen about this air war is the Holden Bloodfeast one.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GuBVe-dXkAA40kR?format=jpg&name=small)



(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GuBVoWlW4AAjoy4?format=jpg&name=small)



(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GuHSc9VXYAAbiq0?format=jpg&name=small)

RIP Holden Bloodfeast.

This is not a meme I'm familiar with at all :unsure:

I've seen the first one already years ago, not the other two though. :lol:

Anyway, Iran has shot missiles at Qatar. Most were shot down apparently.

It's an older meme, sir, but it checks out.

With Medvedev and Trump having a twitter feud over nukes, I remembered that Threads' pre-nuclesr strike scenes have in the background news reports of a gradually escalating American-Russian conflict in Iran.

Quote from: Tamas on June 23, 2025, 01:17:50 PMWith Medvedev and Trump having a twitter feud over nukes, I remembered that Threads' pre-nuclesr strike scenes have in the background news reports of a gradually escalating American-Russian conflict in Iran.

battlefront 3 was also US-Iran veering into US-Russia, with Paris getting nuked

The very good boardgame The Third World War also used an Iranian civil war in the 80s engulfing first the region then both superpowers.

Iran gave advance notice of their Qatar strike and Trump spilled it thay they did. I guess that was the last time Iran played ball like that, the regime's humiliation is now complete.

Quote from: Tamas on June 23, 2025, 03:47:36 PMIran gave advance notice of their Qatar strike and Trump spilled it thay they did. I guess that was the last time Iran played ball like that, the regime's humiliation is now complete.

The Iranians told the world that they gave advance notice to the Americans.  They were not trying to kill Americans. They were attacking the military installation.  It's a clever move sending the message that they did more than the Americans to preserve lifes.

It's also a good deescalation move. 

Ceasefire. Oil price almost back to normal. Iran bottled up in the mountains. Israel the undisputed regional power. :hmm:

Iran or Israel say anything yet, or still only trump? Will he get his much coveted peace prize now?

This is not the ending I expected, if it actually the ending.  Who woulda thunk it would be the Islamic republic showing restraint - unless they are really crippled at this point.

Yeah I have no idea. I mean, I'm happy if they're not starting WWIII yet.

Quote from: Bauer on June 23, 2025, 07:55:01 PMThis is not the ending I expected, if it actually the ending.  Who woulda thunk it would be the Islamic republic showing restraint - unless they are really crippled at this point.

They have shown restraint on a number of occasions.  And it's pretty easy to viewed as the reasonable one when the Americans elect someone named Trump.

But now I'm back to thinking on my earlier thought, if Trump comes out of this untouched and gets rid of Irans nuclear program you'd think that will be a massive boost to the maga cult.

Getting rid of something that does not yet exist is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.

Iran had a concept of a plan to develop nuclear weapons.

Yeah, they built a bomb proof facility full of centrifuges 300 feet underground as a lark. :rolleyes:  I understand you don't agree with the bombing, and don't like Trump or Netanyahu, but let's not create a new reality.  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdr3yxgjd6ro

QuoteWith possible Iran-Israel ceasefire, Trump's high-risk strikes may pay off

US President Donald Trump took a gamble by inserting the US into the worsening conflict between Israel and Iran, but it may have paid off - at least for now.

Trump announced on Monday evening that the two countries had agreed to a ceasefire that he said could lead to a lasting peace.

If the American president has in fact ended what he labelled the "12 Day War", it would make for a significant step back from the brink of a conflict that seemed on the verge of engulfing the region, along with pulling America further in after US airstrikes hit Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday.

"Provided that the Israeli regime stops its illegal aggression against the Iranian people no later than 4 am Tehran time," Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in a statement, "we have no intention to continue our response afterwards."

It may not be called a ceasefire, but as the 04:00 deadline arrived in Tehran the Israeli attacks reportedly came to a halt. The two parties appear to be on the verge of turning down the heat.

This development comes after a tumultuous day in the region, when Iran followed through on its promise to retaliate for Saturday's US strike.

According to early reports, all the Iranian missiles directed at the massive US base in Qatar were intercepted and there were no American casualties or damage.

During his address to the nation on Saturday night, President Trump warned that there would be an overwhelming American answer to any Iranian attacks on US interests. He promised that there were more targets that could be struck by American forces if needed.

For more than 24 hours, the world waited to see what Iran would do. Once Iran had acted, attention swung back to the US president and, after a few hours, he had his first say.

"Iran has officially responded to our Obliteration of their Nuclear Facilities with a very weak response, which we expected, and have very effectively countered," Trump posted on his social media site.

He said that Iran had gotten it out of their "system" and added that "perhaps Iran can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region".

While the damage is reported to limited, Trump seemed inclined to hold his fire in the hope that the Iranians would be willing to negotiate in earnest. And, behind the scenes, the White House says he was talking to Qatari mediators and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to work out the details of the ceasefire.

Trump's weekend attack on Iran was a high-risk manoeuvre, but a scenario in which the pay-offs are already coming into view.

A similar dynamic played itself out in January 2020, when Trump ordered the targeted killing of Iranian Revolutionary Guard leader Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad.

Iran launched missiles at military bases in Iraq, injuring more than 100 American soldiers, but the US chose not to escalate. Cooler heads ultimately prevailed.

According to US media, in their latest attack on Monday, Iran fired a number of missiles at American bases equal to the total number of bombs US warplanes dropped during its weekend attack.

That, along with the advance notice Iran provided to the Qatari government prior to the launch, for which Trump said he was grateful, suggests the Iranians are seeking proportionality, not escalation.

For most of the day, Trump was more focused on the price of oil, American media coverage and a suggestion by former Russian President Dimitry Medvedev that an outside nation provide Iran with nuclear weapons.

US officials have stated that this president follows through on his threats, in contrast with some of his predecessors.

If Iran were to launch another round of attacks - and there were American deaths or significant damage - pressure would mount for Trump to respond.

For the moment, however, he is seemingly eyeing an off-ramp to more fighting and both countries appear willing to entertain it.

What was the pay off?

Was the Iranian fissile material destroyed?  Anyone who has a clue isn't saying.  If it wasn't, then little of value was achieved.  If it was, the Iranian program has been hobbled, unless or until or any one of Russia, China, and/or Pakistan decides they want to help Iran develop weapons, in which case there is pretty much nothing to do.

I don't see the strategic rationale of this.  Apparently, Trump didn't either, because he opposed it until presented with the Israeli fait accompli.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2025, 12:34:09 AMYeah, they built a bomb proof facility full of centrifuges 300 feet underground as a lark. :rolleyes:  I understand you don't agree with the bombing, and don't like Trump or Netanyahu, but let's not create a new reality. 

whooooosh

Well if the ceasefire holds (and I can only see Netanhau breaking it) this will be an easy sell as a win for Trump - missiles being lobbed left and right, he shoowps in gets the job done and brokers a ceasefire.

What everyone should start worrying about, mostly in the US, is what the next episode in his ever-escalating reality tv show is going to be about.

Looks like the war is back on between Israel and Iran at least. I just saw an update on Al Jazeera of possible Iranian missile strikes in Beersheba post-ceasefire and vows of retaliation and revenge from the Israeli Finance Minister and Defense Minister. It looks like the "12 Day War" had a "12 Minute Truce" before hostilities have resumed. So much for Trump's Peace Prize.

Yeah I figure Bibi can't afford to declare victory and move on as "on" is prison for him.

It would explain the nebulous war aims in Gaza and now Iran. You can't be deposed if you're always at war! ...probably.  :glare:

...and the ceasefire is back on. Again. Maybe.  :wacko:

Quote from: Sophie Scholl on June 24, 2025, 04:01:05 AM...and the ceasefire is back on. Again. Maybe.  :wacko:

The only hope is that unlike in Gaza, two of the three actors are actually interested in peace.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 24, 2025, 01:23:06 AMWas the Iranian fissile material destroyed?  Anyone who has a clue isn't saying.  If it wasn't, then little of value was achieved.

Centrifuges were destroyed. The underground facility which housed them, and which Israel could not reach short of launching one of their own nukes, was degraded.

"Degraded" - translation, we don't have a clue.

Centrifuges are relatively cheap on the governmental scale of things and not that hard to source, especially if you have friends in high nuclear places like Iran.

As long as the highly enriched material is not accounted for, it's a dud.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 24, 2025, 07:40:42 AM"Degraded" - translation, we don't have a clue.

Centrifuges are relatively cheap on the governmental scale of things and not that hard to source, especially if you have friends in high nuclear places like Iran.

As long as the highly enriched material is not accounted for, it's a dud.

Point taken.  *If* centrifuges were destroyed and *if* the underground facility was degraded something of value was achieved.

The centrifuges were originally not that hard to source because the Netherlands had lax export controls and Iran was able to hoodwink them.  If they can get 10,000 more on Temu I'm inclined to agree with you.

What highly enriched uranium are you talking about?  If US intelligence is correct, they had not begun to speed up enrichment from 20% to 60%.

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf

Quote10. As previously reported, on 5 December 2024, Iran started feeding the two IR-6 cascades producing UF6 enriched up to 60% U-235 at FFEP with UF6 enriched up to 20% U-235, rather than UF6 enriched up to 5% U-235, without altering the enrichment level of the product.17 The effect of this change has been to significantly increase the rate of production of UF6 enriched up to 60% at FFEP to over 34 kg of uranium in the form of UF6 per month. 

I see nothing stopping Iran from ordering new kit from their ally Russia. It can be shipped across the Caspian.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn7ze4vmk2pt?post=asset%3Abfc8cf74-53a1-424a-8443-6d280c1fdb3e#post

QuoteMore now from US President Donald Trump, who says he's "not happy" with Israel.

"There was one rocket that I guess was fired overboard after the time limit and now Israel is going out. These guys [have] got to calm down," he says, speaking to reporters before heading to the Nato summit in The Hague.

He adds that he didn't like "plenty of things" he saw yesterday.

"I didn't like the fact that Israel unloaded right after we made the deal," he says referring to the ceasefire he announced earlier. "They didn't have to unload."

The president continues: "We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing."

Full video.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 24, 2025, 09:20:55 AMI see nothing stopping Iran from ordering new kit from their ally Russia. It can be shipped across the Caspian.

Or China. Or Pakistan. Or North Korea.

Quote from: Syt on June 24, 2025, 10:09:30 AMFull video.

Very authentic, an important leadership quality!  :)

Soon everything will be forgiven and Israel America relations will go back to normal


https://www.instagram.com/reel/DKxXfy5R_aL

 :P

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 24, 2025, 09:14:17 AMhttps://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf

Quote10. As previously reported, on 5 December 2024, Iran started feeding the two IR-6 cascades producing UF6 enriched up to 60% U-235 at FFEP with UF6 enriched up to 20% U-235, rather than UF6 enriched up to 5% U-235, without altering the enrichment level of the product.17 The effect of this change has been to significantly increase the rate of production of UF6 enriched up to 60% at FFEP to over 34 kg of uranium in the form of UF6 per month. 

OK, so the IAEA and Mossad are on the same page.  That's useful.

If your position is that the 34 kg of 60% uranium is the only worthwhile target, I don't see how you get there.  That 34 kg took six months to produce.  If the centrifuges needed to enrich to 60% can be replaced relatively easily, the best we can do is slow them down by six months or so, plus however long it takes to get new centrifuges.

The reality as I understand it is that Iran has been in a position where they could produce at least one nuclear weapon on fairly short notice for years now.  The policy has not been to build the weapons, but to stop just short.  The policy has been to continue develop fissile material to expand the breadth of the potential "breakout" arsenal, but without actually breaking out.

If this is correct - and its what the IAEA reports suggest - then attacks can do certain things.  They can temporarily slow the buildup of the potential breakout arsenal.  They can temporarily slow the time to breakout by a bit by demolishing facilities and forcing assets to be scattered. But if they don't get the enriched material, the fundamentals of the situation don't materially change.

But that's my point.  Even if they do get the enriched uranium the fundamentals don't change.

The policy makes sense.  Iran is at a point that it could build and detonate a Little Boy-style bomb relatively quickly.  The problem is, such a weapon is not a deterrent, it's a big, flashing alert for Israel, the US, and possibly others to throw everything they can get on target at the Iranian regime before they can develop this into a deterrent.  So, in addition to expanding the breadth, I think they are working on better delivery technologies.  I don't think we'll see Iran declare they have a weapon until they have warheads to tip Shahab-3s with.  That's the only way they stop a massive reaction to their joining the nuclear club.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 24, 2025, 11:17:25 AMThe policy makes sense.  Iran is at a point that it could build and detonate a Little Boy-style bomb relatively quickly.  The problem is, such a weapon is not a deterrent, it's a big, flashing alert for Israel, the US, and possibly others to throw everything they can get on target at the Iranian regime before they can develop this into a deterrent.  So, in addition to expanding the breadth, I think they are working on better delivery technologies.  I don't think we'll see Iran declare they have a weapon until they have warheads to tip Shahab-3s with.  That's the only way they stop a massive reaction to their joining the nuclear club.

Exactly.

A direct US attack sent a strong signal that Iran should make haste to develop that deterrent.  As in so many other things, the US has shown itself to be erratic and unreliable. Abandoning what had been US policy over several administrations does not help.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2025, 11:06:48 AMBut that's my point.  Even if they do get the enriched uranium the fundamentals don't change.

it puts a more significant dent in the timeline.

But I don't really disagree with you.  I don't think its possible to bomb Iran out of a nuclear capability if Iran is really committed, unless the US/Israel is really comitted to doing it very broadly on a sustained basis.

What is to stop Iran from building their centrifuges in a third country, like Pakistan or Russia?  Also, I'm a little dubious on how you can destroy the enriched material.  If it is blown apart, it can just be reassembled.  It wouldn't be chemically changed because a bomb hit the building it was in.

Here's what wiki has to say about uranium centrifuge production ability.

"Zippe-type centrifuge facilities

    Khan Research Laboratories in Pakistan
    National Enrichment Facility of Los Alamos National Laboratory in the United States
    Urenco Group in Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Germany
    Russia (where it is called Kamenev centrifuge)"

I would've expected China to have the capability to generate weapons grade nuclear materials (and to construct the equipment to generate it as well).

Quote from: Zanza on June 24, 2025, 10:30:12 AM

Quote from: Syt on June 24, 2025, 10:09:30 AMFull video.

Very authentic, an important leadership quality!  :)

This, but unironically :lol:

I think it's the best thing he's ever said - and the clip is extraordinary for his blunt anger at Israel. US Presidents can really put pressure on Israel when they want. That's a change from the last few years.

Obviously aside from that (and I get the whataboutery) I feel like Obama or Biden showing that level of anger or putting pressure on Israel like that would kick off a huge backlash and probably a fair bit of concern about anti-semitism on the left (which is a thing). While the guy and party who "both sidesed" Charlottesville can, apparently, get away with it.

@Jacob

"The Zippe-type centrifuge is difficult to build successfully and requires carefully machined parts. However, compared to other enrichment methods, it is much cheaper and is faster to set up, consumes much less energy and requires little area for the plant. Therefore, it can be built in relative secrecy. This makes it ideal for covert nuclear-weapons programs and increases the risk of nuclear proliferation."

There are other enrichment methods.

From the same article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zippe-type_centrifuge

:thumbsup:

US intelligence reports suggest that the strikes did not destroy Fordow. But the White House only sees these reports as a denigration of Donald Trump.

I guess I should be glad to hear a renewed resounding faith in US intelligence assessments? :hmm:

How does the White House know the US intelligence reports are incorrect?

From the NYTimes

QuoteA preliminary classified U.S. report says the American bombing of three nuclear sites in Iran set back the country's nuclear program by only a few months, according to officials familiar with the findings.

The strikes sealed off the entrances to two of the facilities but did not collapse their underground buildings, the officials said the early findings concluded.

Before the attack, U.S. intelligence agencies had said that if Iran tried to rush to making a bomb, it would take about three months. After the U.S. bombing run and days of attacks by the Israeli Air Force, the report by the Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that the program had been delayed, but by less than six months.

(https://gdb.voanews.com/39cbb8ce-17cf-477f-992e-0956133744c9_w1080_h608.jpg)

Iran is basically fucked if this boffin analysis is correct. They're now effectively boxed in like Saddam was in the 90's.  :hmm:

QuoteWe saw the reports on the leaked DIA report, and have a few comments.  The aspects raised are addressing a narrow question, albeit an important one, namely how quickly could Iran make a nuclear weapon in a worst case assessment post-attack.  With residual stocks of 60 percent and hidden centrifuges, Iran retains an ability to breakout and produce weapon-grade uranium.  We agree, but this is an on-going process, where it is necessary to continue hunting down these items or make a deal where Iran has to give them up.

But the situation is dynamic and not static. One change today, after the completion of the DIA report, is intelligence evidence that more enriched uranium stocks are in the rubble than believed just yesterday.

Considering the damage to Iran's three known enrichment facilities, the destruction of Iran's centrifuge manufacturing capabilities, its uranium conversion facility, uranium metal production plant, and other facilities involved in its nuclear weaponization process, reconstituting these capabilities will take significant time, investment, and energy to return to its previous state before the war or build nuclear weapons.  Iran has likely lost close to 20,000 centrifuges at Natanz and Fordow, creating a major bottleneck in any reconstitution effort.  Moreover, there has been considerable damage to Iran's ability to build the nuclear weapon itself.

Further complicating matters for Iran, the country is under intense scrutiny and observation from the United States and Israel.  Any major effort to reconstitute its capabilities may well be met with further strikes.

More analysis and information will be required to completely ascertain the true state of Iran's enrichment and other nuclear capabilities. But to reduce what has happened to a worst case assessment, while it has value, is misleading to say the least.

https://x.com/DAVIDHALBRIGHT1/status/1937617920508531159 (https://x.com/DAVIDHALBRIGHT1/status/1937617920508531159)

I think this ceasefire is very likely to only last a few weeks/months before a new round of hostilities resume.

Excellent some guy on X said that he doesn't agree with the intelligence agencies of the United States and their assessment that very little is done by the attack. By all means let's definitely trust what we read on social media.

He's a former IAEA inspector who runs a nonproliferation think tank and I noticed him because journalists on x were retweeting him.

Quote from: Legbiter on June 25, 2025, 08:15:54 AMHe's a former IAEA inspector who runs a nonproliferation think tank and I noticed him because journalists on x were retweeting him.

What should be considered is that:

a) that thinkthank likely has fewer tools available to ascertain damage and
b) the Pentagon, in the current environment especially, is likely very reluctant to disprove the US President unless they are confident in their assessment

Quote from: Legbiter on June 25, 2025, 08:15:54 AMHe's a former IAEA inspector who runs a nonproliferation think tank and I noticed him because journalists on x were retweeting him.

Yes, the key to that is he does not have access to any information about what just happened other than what he is inferring from what he reads from news reports.

And the fact that news reporters are tweeting him, and treating him as a source shows exactly the problem with social media.

Why would anybody prefer the judgement of somebody who used to do the job to the judgement of people who are currently doing the job?

Albright's account is citing a recently released statement from Israel's Atomic Energy Commission:

QuoteThe devastating US strike on Fordow destroyed the site's critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility inoperable. We assess that the American strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, combined with Israeli strikes on other elements of Iran's military nuclear program, has set back Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years. The achievement can continue indefinitely if Iran does not get access to nuclear material

It's an interesting statement for both what it says and what it doesn't say.  It says that Fordow's "critical infrastructure" was destroyed, rendering it "inoperable".  It does not say that the underground facilities themselves were destroyed.  That makes the statement consistent with the leaked US intelligence assessment, as well as the pre-strike analysis from many sources questioning whether the deep penetration bombs could penetrate through the layers of hard rock  to reach the underground facility.

The implication is that the surface and immediate sub-surface elements of the site were indeed "obliterated".  And that is significant because it would include things like roads, elevators, lifts, stores, depots, etc. at or around the site.  I.e. "critical infrastructure" and stuff that is needed to operate the site on a day-to-day basis. But the implication is also that whatever was been protected underground at the site was not eliminated.

He laid out the worst-case scenario in the first paragraph I quoted.

QuoteWe saw the reports on the leaked DIA report, and have a few comments.  The aspects raised are addressing a narrow question, albeit an important one, namely how quickly could Iran make a nuclear weapon in a worst case assessment post-attack.  With residual stocks of 60 percent and hidden centrifuges, Iran retains an ability to breakout and produce weapon-grade uranium.  We agree, but this is an on-going process, where it is necessary to continue hunting down these items or make a deal where Iran has to give them up.

He's also doing his own satellite damage assessment based on his expertise.

But we will see, this ceasefire will not last more than months before a new escalation cycle kicks in I predict.  :hmm:

I have to say I am kind of impressed by how confusing this situation is.

Is this war over? Did the bombing achieve any of our objectives? What the fuck are our objectives? Is Iran dangerous? Is Iran a joke?

Did Iran somehow implant tons of sleeper cells throughout the country that are going to rise up and...um...do something at any minute? And why did Joe Biden allow them to do that?

I have no idea. It's crazy.

Quote from: Legbiter on June 25, 2025, 10:49:50 AMHe laid out the worst-case scenario in the first paragraph I quoted.

QuoteWe saw the reports on the leaked DIA report, and have a few comments.  The aspects raised are addressing a narrow question, albeit an important one, namely how quickly could Iran make a nuclear weapon in a worst case assessment post-attack.  With residual stocks of 60 percent and hidden centrifuges, Iran retains an ability to breakout and produce weapon-grade uranium.  We agree, but this is an on-going process, where it is necessary to continue hunting down these items or make a deal where Iran has to give them up.

He's also doing his own satellite damage assessment based on his expertise.

But we will see, this ceasefire will not last more than months before a new escalation cycle kicks in I predict.  :hmm:

I guess you fail to see CC's point. Ultimately, he is just a guy on Twitter. Sure he has/claims to have qualifications more than the average person, but, at the end of the day, he is a rando on Twitter.

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2025, 01:04:26 PMI guess you fail to see CC's point. Ultimately, he is just a guy on Twitter. Sure he has/claims to have qualifications more than the average person, but, at the end of the day, he is a rando on Twitter.

You can do what you like with this first semester uni undergraduate "what is Knowledge" tosh.  :)

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2025, 01:04:26 PMI guess you fail to see CC's point. Ultimately, he is just a guy on Twitter. Sure he has/claims to have qualifications more than the average person, but, at the end of the day, he is a rando on Twitter.

My point is that the people who have the data are more reliable then someone second guessing the people with the actual data.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2025, 02:27:36 PMMy point is that the people who have the data are more reliable then someone second guessing the people with the actual data.

The dude is literally a nuclear expert doing his own bomb assessment from satellite footage! Apparently enrichment centrifuges are very temperamental when it comes to strong seismic waves and/or cave-ins. Any further nuke development is liable to immediate military action. Is this hard to understand?

Ok, if you feel a need to believe the dude who formerly held the role and is second guessing those who currently fill the role, fill your boots.

I'm not sure how anyone can be sure of anything looking at a few photos of holes in the ground.  How do we know the bombs even penetrated down to the facility?  I'm still a bit dubious on how bombing the complex is suppose to chemically change the Uranium.  When US scientists tested the plutonium bomb in 1945, they built a round depression to catch the fissile material in case the implosion devise didn't go off correctly and just exploded and spread the stuff around.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2025, 03:03:22 PMOk, if you feel a need to believe the dude who formerly held the role and is second guessing those who currently fill the role, fill your boots.

I'm sure you are not at all a retard. I am sure you can take care of your own bowel movements without any special staff assisting at all. I believe all of this without the New York Times explicitly telling me so.  :contract: 

"Do your own research!!!!!11111!" Legbiter screams as he ingests another dose of horse dewormer.

Quote from: Zoupa on June 25, 2025, 03:43:19 PM"Do your own research!!!!!11111!" Legbiter screams as he ingests another dose of horse dewormer.

:D

The Auatollah came out of hiding and declared victory over the US and Israel.

(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eea50b30cdb43fd3005e8a97ec43754db8e225a4539ab93bb6caa91161b70663.jpg)

Quote from: Tamas on June 26, 2025, 07:01:00 AMThe Auatollah came out of hiding and declared victory over the US and Israel.

(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eea50b30cdb43fd3005e8a97ec43754db8e225a4539ab93bb6caa91161b70663.jpg)

That's the rules of hide and seek. If they don't find you in the time limit you win

Quote from: Tamas on June 26, 2025, 07:01:00 AMThe Auatollah came out of hiding and declared victory over the US and Israel.

(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eea50b30cdb43fd3005e8a97ec43754db8e225a4539ab93bb6caa91161b70663.jpg)

Well they weren't trying to stop our nuclear program nor were they discussing doing any regime change.

So still being in power with an intact nuclear program looks like a win to me. At least from his perspective.

From a perspective of "when the bully hits you, you hit back so they burn their fingers and don't hit you again" Iran lost.

From a perspective of "we are massively outgunned, they hit us, but we're not really going to change our course or direction, and we were not drawn into destruction. We weathered the storm and maintained our pride" it can probably be seen as a win.

Quote from: Jacob on June 26, 2025, 04:41:26 PMFrom a perspective of "we are massively outgunned, they hit us, but we're not really going to change our course or direction, and we were not drawn into destruction. We weathered the storm and maintained our pride" it can probably be seen as a win.

Seeing as how this subplot began with Iran launching missiles at Israel, if they stop launching missiles it will be hard to spin as anything other than we give up.  Especially after announcing very publicly they were going to close the Straights and then not sending a single person on a motorboat to his well deserved date with 72 virgins.

Quote from: Jacob on June 26, 2025, 04:41:26 PMFrom a perspective of "when the bully hits you, you hit back so they burn their fingers and don't hit you again" Iran lost.

From a perspective of "we are massively outgunned, they hit us, but we're not really going to change our course or direction, and we were not drawn into destruction. We weathered the storm and maintained our pride" it can probably be seen as a win.

Yeah, weirdly Israel and Iran won, but US may have lost.

Israel won in that they convinced a US president to attack Iran. And somehow they convinced Yi that Iran attacked first. Iran won for the reasons you gave.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2025, 06:13:31 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 26, 2025, 04:41:26 PMFrom a perspective of "we are massively outgunned, they hit us, but we're not really going to change our course or direction, and we were not drawn into destruction. We weathered the storm and maintained our pride" it can probably be seen as a win.

Especially after announcing very publicly they were going to close the Straights.

They actually didn't. Parliament passed a resolution to do so, but it was never taken up by their security council. It's a trick I've seen Russia do where the Duma will pass something insane but Putin never actually signs it. It's just performative; the thing is obviously a threat, but they always stop short of being actually bound by it.

Naturally the threat will be less effective now.

Iranian regime is embarrassed and boxed in. Israel basically decapitated the regime minus the 86 year old Ayatollah. Their nuclear program given how effortlessly Israel achieved air superiority is under a hard Israeli/US veto at this point.  :hmm:

Since only the US has the military capability of reaching the underground facilities used for the Iranian nuclear program, how does Israel have a "hard" veto over the program now that the US has said its part is done?

Also, how is the Iranian regime "boxed in" any more than it was before the US launched its attack?

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 27, 2025, 11:54:42 AMSince only the US has the military capability of reaching the underground facilities used for the Iranian nuclear program, how does Israel have a "hard" veto over the program now that the US has said its part is done?

Also, how is the Iranian regime "boxed in" any more than it was before the US launched its attack?

Israel can blow up every point it considers suspicious since it has total air superiority. The regime wanting to manufacture ballistic missiles will as well be pruned back.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2025, 06:13:31 PMSeeing as how this subplot began with Iran launching missiles at Israel, if they stop launching missiles it will be hard to spin as anything other than we give up.

Obviously I am confused because I thought it started with Israel launching missiles at Iran.

QuoteEspecially after announcing very publicly they were going to close the Straights and then not sending a single person on a motorboat to his well deserved date with 72 virgins.

Well they might have a problem there. The Shia don't seem to do the 72 virgins thing as much as the Sunnis.

Quote from: Legbiter on June 27, 2025, 11:32:05 AMIranian regime is embarrassed and boxed in. Israel basically decapitated the regime minus the 86 year old Ayatollah. Their nuclear program given how effortlessly Israel achieved air superiority is under a hard Israeli/US veto at this point.  :hmm:

Iran's position seems unchanged to me. They were basically a threat to nobody outside of their rather pathetic regional proxies before...and they seem to be the same now.

Quote from: Legbiter on June 27, 2025, 12:00:24 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 27, 2025, 11:54:42 AMSince only the US has the military capability of reaching the underground facilities used for the Iranian nuclear program, how does Israel have a "hard" veto over the program now that the US has said its part is done?

Also, how is the Iranian regime "boxed in" any more than it was before the US launched its attack?

Israel can blow up every point it considers suspicious since it has total air superiority. The regime wanting to manufacture ballistic missiles will as well be pruned back.

Right. So since they are obviously the dominant and unchallenged power in all of West Asia, why do we still need to attack their enemies and give them weapons?

Why do we need to "stand with Israel"?

Apocalypses don't start themselves.

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2025, 01:16:58 PM

Quote from: Legbiter on June 27, 2025, 11:32:05 AMIranian regime is embarrassed and boxed in. Israel basically decapitated the regime minus the 86 year old Ayatollah. Their nuclear program given how effortlessly Israel achieved air superiority is under a hard Israeli/US veto at this point.  :hmm:

Iran's position seems unchanged to me. They were basically a threat to nobody outside of their rather pathetic regional proxies before...and they seem to be the same now.

You are pushing the argument a bit too far the opposite direction, I feel. It is only very recently iran was squaring up against the Saudis in Yemen as equals, while proxying Syria, de facto ruling Lebanon through Hezbollah, and in general quite clearly gunning die regional supremacy.

Sure right now they are no serious contenders or a danger to anyone but that is BECAUSE the Israelis have defeated them.

I don't see any contradiction. They only ever had their regional proxies who, while dominant in their little fiefdoms were kind of pathetic overall.

Nobody ever thought the mighty Iranian military was going to roll over the local area.

Quote from: Tamas on June 27, 2025, 01:40:52 PMYou are pushing the argument a bit too far the opposite direction, I feel. It is only very recently iran was squaring up against the Saudis in Yemen as equals, while proxying Syria, de facto ruling Lebanon through Hezbollah, and in general quite clearly gunning die regional supremacy.

Sure right now they are no serious contenders or a danger to anyone but that is BECAUSE the Israelis have defeated them.

Yeah that's a good point. Israel already had victory in hand there, before launching these strikes on Iran.

The question for me is what purpose the strikes serve, and how much they contributed towards achieving that purpose. In my mind there are four main purposes:

• Set back the Iranian nuke program significantly or, ideally, render it unviable. I don't know enough to feel confident about this in either direction. I suppose time will tell.
• Continually demonstrate that the Iranian regime has been defanged in the region. I suppose the strikes achieved that in the moment, but if it  is a significant part of the reasoning, they'll need to keep it up the pressure. One and done won't be enough, so if this matters I expect we'll se more such actions. In that view, it is a propaganda action and narratives about who won or lost also matter.
• Effect regime change in Iran. If this was the goal, it did not seem to succeed. But if they succeed in 2. above over the long term, it may eventually work out.
• Keep Nethanyahu safe from domestic challenges. It likely worked for the moment, and like 2. above it suggests a need for continual action.

The israeli strikes made sense if they genuinely felt they would need to deal with the Iranian nuclear program this way. Because if so, when else a better time to do it, when they have with long careful planning neutralised the Iranian proxies and due to the their Gaza campaign they are already at rock bottom with international PR?

If they had a respectable leadership I would not question their motives and fully support them. But I can very easily imagine of Netanyahu that the only real consideration was to keep escalating so he can personally keep out of prison.

Yeah, I don't think they don't make sense. For me the question is how effective they were in achieving their goal(s).

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 26, 2025, 07:25:48 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 26, 2025, 04:41:26 PMFrom a perspective of "when the bully hits you, you hit back so they burn their fingers and don't hit you again" Iran lost.

From a perspective of "we are massively outgunned, they hit us, but we're not really going to change our course or direction, and we were not drawn into destruction. We weathered the storm and maintained our pride" it can probably be seen as a win.

Yeah, weirdly Israel and Iran won, but US may have lost.

Israel won in that they convinced a US president to attack Iran. And somehow they convinced Yi that Iran attacked first. Iran won for the reasons you gave.

I don't think Israel or the US gained anything, but Trump and Netanyahu did.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2025, 03:10:59 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 26, 2025, 07:25:48 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 26, 2025, 04:41:26 PMFrom a perspective of "when the bully hits you, you hit back so they burn their fingers and don't hit you again" Iran lost.

From a perspective of "we are massively outgunned, they hit us, but we're not really going to change our course or direction, and we were not drawn into destruction. We weathered the storm and maintained our pride" it can probably be seen as a win.

Yeah, weirdly Israel and Iran won, but US may have lost.

Israel won in that they convinced a US president to attack Iran. And somehow they convinced Yi that Iran attacked first. Iran won for the reasons you gave.

I don't think Israel or the US gained anything, but Trump and Netanyahu did.

Yeah, good point.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2025, 03:10:59 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 26, 2025, 07:25:48 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 26, 2025, 04:41:26 PMFrom a perspective of "when the bully hits you, you hit back so they burn their fingers and don't hit you again" Iran lost.

From a perspective of "we are massively outgunned, they hit us, but we're not really going to change our course or direction, and we were not drawn into destruction. We weathered the storm and maintained our pride" it can probably be seen as a win.

Yeah, weirdly Israel and Iran won, but US may have lost.

Israel won in that they convinced a US president to attack Iran. And somehow they convinced Yi that Iran attacked first. Iran won for the reasons you gave.

I don't think Israel or the US gained anything, but Trump and Netanyahu did.

Exactly. There's no point doing a deep analysis of the objectives or motivations, especially in trump's case. He's swayed by fox News discourse and whoever spoke to him deferential last.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2025, 03:10:59 PMI don't think Israel or the US gained anything, but Trump and Netanyahu did.

Yeah  :(

Quote from: Zoupa on June 27, 2025, 03:52:42 PMExactly. There's no point doing a deep analysis of the objectives or motivations, especially in trump's case. He's swayed by fox News discourse and whoever spoke to him deferential last.

It's totally worth it to discuss objectives and motivations. It's just that there are multiple possible scenarios, and that whatever Trump says or does is in service of whoever whispered at him first.

But we can still evaluate what objectives the US and Israel did or did not achieve by their actions, whether or not they intended them - and personally I find it worthwhile to do.

I think Trump's motivation is his desire to claim credit for ending Iran nuclear program.  He doesn't care if the bombing did anything, just that he is perceived as putting an end to it.

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2025, 01:15:19 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2025, 06:13:31 PMSeeing as how this subplot began with Iran launching missiles at Israel, if they stop launching missiles it will be hard to spin as anything other than we give up.

Obviously I am confused because I thought it started with Israel launching missiles at Iran.

Yup, I had it wrong.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2025, 05:49:48 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2025, 01:15:19 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2025, 06:13:31 PMSeeing as how this subplot began with Iran launching missiles at Israel, if they stop launching missiles it will be hard to spin as anything other than we give up.

Obviously I am confused because I thought it started with Israel launching missiles at Iran.

Yup, I had it wrong.

Ok gotcha. As I said earlier I am finding the speed in which all this happens and how quick news seems to move on from everything very confusing.