The Israel-Iran War ?

[Zoupa]

 

[Zoupa]

I see mission creep has already begun, with Trump talking about regime change. Good luck, yanks.

[Admiral Yi]

Every time I see this emoji I know I've won because the other person has run out of arguments.

[Zoupa]

Every time I see this emoji I know I've won because the other person has run out of arguments.

Here, have another win 

[Admiral Yi]

Here, have another win 

It wouldn't be right to count the same victory twice. 

[Zoupa]

Semantics are the last refuge of the incompetents, after all.

[Grey Fox]

Zoupa, don't be another victim of American class war. Anticléricalisme et la fin d'une theocracie est le saint Graal. Peu importe comment.

[Zoupa]

Je m'en bat les couilles des mollahs Iraniens, t'inquiète. Faire chier et moquer les ricains, ça reste quand même dans mon ADN

[Admiral Yi]

Semantics 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?

[HVC]

Zoupa, 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

[crazy canuck]

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.

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.

Then 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Then 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[grumbler]

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.

[Bauer]

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?

[Razgovory]

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.

[mongers]

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.

Hilarious, wasn't Bibi your hero all of two days ago?