Israel and Iran continue to exchange strikes with no sign of letting up.
Overnight Iranian strikes killed at least eight people in Israel, the Israel Defense Forces said Monday — raising the death toll reported by Israeli authorities since Friday to 24. IDF spokesman Effie Defrin said the eight who died overnight were civilians and accused Iran of targeting “population centers.” Strike impacts were reported overnight in central Israel and in Haifa, a northern port city.
Israel targeted energy production facilities and manufacturing plants across Iran on Sunday, as Tehran residents described the heaviest wave of attacks yet. In the central city of Isfahan, the IDF said it targeted some 100 military sites. According to social media video and state media reports, strikes also hit Iranian airports and police stations. Iranian Health Ministry spokesman Hossein Kermanpour said at least 224 people have been killed since Israel began its military campaign Friday.
President Donald Trump told reporters Sunday that “it’s time for a deal” between Iran and Israel that would de-escalate tensions. But, he added, “sometimes they have to fight it out.”
The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Rafael Mariano Grossi, said Monday there was no sign of a physical attack on the underground section of Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment facility — though other sections sustained damage in Israeli strikes on Friday. Experts told The Washington Post that Israel’s attacks did not appear to take out the enrichment centrifuges or enriched material buried deep underground.
Coverage from the BBC:
As mentioned previously, my partner is Iranian but Zoroastrian. I was at a community event with her yesterday. The attitude seems somewhat conflicted. They don’t like the destruction brought by the war but they do seem to like the fact that the Iranian clerical regime is getting it and getting it hard. From what I can tell, many Iranian Zoroastrians saw the Pahlavi period as something of a golden age because the last two Shahs kept the more theocratically oriented Muslims in their place and they really don’t like the clerical regime at all. They seemed pissed that Trump said no to Israel killing the Supreme Leader and happy that a television channel that does propaganda for the regime became popular.
They seemed pissed that Trump said no to Israel killing the Supreme Leader
I absolutely understand why Trump wouldn’t want to normalize killing heads of state.
In this case, however, isn’t there significant upside to *NOT* killing the Supreme Leader? I mean, he’s been fairly discredited and is becoming discrediteder by the moment.
If you want someone on the other side to eat the blame for losing a war and less than favourable peace terms, a well established leader on their way out is ideal. The current Supreme Leader is the counter-party with the most flexibility to negotiate from the Israeli point of view.
Since Iran tried to kill Trump, I’m surprised he said that.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-iran-try-assassinate-donald-trump-2086175
Eh, I’m gonna nitpick and say “plotting” is different than “attempting”.
“WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING IRAN!”
I’m not defending Iran. But what is described in the article is plotting.
Look, I am someone who just has the barest idea of how spycraft works, I’ve done a moderate amount of research as a layperson but would never pretend to be an expert. But I think even someone who didn’t know anything at all would think, uh, this sounds really stupid:
Iran: We are hiring you to kill a former US president. We have picked you, a known heroin dealer, convicted bank robber, and person deported from and barred from entering the US. Hopefully, you will be able to contact criminals inside the US to do this, it’s a good plan to do this via you relaying this plan instead of us just using existing assets in the US.
Also, we would like those people in the US you get to help you to go ahead and kill some Jewish people in New York, and also you personally should kill some random Israeli tourists in Sri Lanki, which is where you are and the President is not. These crimes, along with your heroin dealing, probably will not distract in any manner from the plan to kill the president, or attract undue attention.
Also, our intelligence service has noticed you talking to the FBI in Tehran for some reason. We hope you are not telling them anything.
Um, yeah. So. This guy actually sounds like a lunatic, and notice there’s absolutely no information about why the hell he would be ‘talking to the FBI in Tehran’ and confessing all this before he vanished.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleimani#Retaliation_attempts_by_Iran
Oh, I have no problem with the idea that Iran would retaliate conceptually, although the fact that there have been two assassination attempts on Trump that are unrelated to Iran, and none from Iran, suggests they literally are not even trying, considering how easy it is apparently to shoot at him. Iran is much more comfortable killing critics and low-level staffers.
But even if they are trying to kill Trump, I cannot believe they would use _this guy_, a person who, again, is literally barred from entering the US, as he exiled after serving time in prison, and he is a known heroin dealer. Why on earth would he be involved in any plot? What sort of insanely bad spycraft is that?
There are currently people arguing over whether or not US forces are involved in Iran.
Israel News Pulse says: “U.S. Air Force jets are currently striking in Iran.”
Sean Parnell (Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, Chief Pentagon Spokesman & Senior Advisor to SECDEF 29) says: American Forces are maintaining their defensive posture & that has not changed.
We will protect American troops & our interests.
Is something happening?
I, personally, am of the opinion that Iran is not likely to be the country where we do not screw up regime change.
If you want to bet on whether or not the US will be at war before July, you can do so here.
The 2nd closest Dominos to the Pentagon is experiencing a huge surge in traffic.
Oh, those poor DoD workers, stuck doing overtime and nothing better to eat than Domino’s. Can’t someone send an intern out for tacos or something?
That particular twitter account also posts updates to how much traffic Freddie’s Beach Bar (the closest gay bar to the Pentagon) is seeing and whether traffic is up or down.
I was going to make a “flaccid” joke but this is a family website.
During the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver, there were many threats of protests at/near the Capitol building that would intentionally turn violent. Many of the buildings in that part of town are connected by an underground tunnel complex, left over from the early days when it was used for coal transport [1]. The riot control officers and their gear stayed in the building where I worked at the time [2]. In the event of such protestors approaching, they would deploy into the tunnel system so they could emerge at the mob’s rear [3]. I had drawn the short straw and was working at the office that week. The officers were provided with high-end takeout, big-screen entertainment, cots, and study areas [4].
[1] I got to spend one morning touring the tunnels (off limits to the public). Today, the main thing down there is the fiber optic cables for the state’s data network.
[2] I was on the legislative staff. The legislature had the 3rd floor. The governor sent the rest of the building, which was executive branch agencies, home for the week. He couldn’t legally do that to/for the legislative staff.
[3] There were no violent protests.
[4] I stopped on my way to lunch one day and asked one of the people who were clearly studying what they were studying. “For the sergeant’s exam,” she told me. “Nice to be paid for the book time.”
They’re selling dollars for 50 cents!
I, personally, am of the opinion that Iran is not likely to be the country where we do not screw up regime change.
Yeah. There is _absolutely_ no way we can do regime change in Iran. Because, uh, of some, uh, history that we might, uh, have with the, you know, government thingy that we installed and, uh, they overthrew, and intensely dislike us for.
Iran is signaling that is surrendering:
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/a-battered-iran-signals-it-wants-to-de-escalate-hostilities-with-israel-and-negotiate-9feab4ae?st=mdg9vM&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
I really doubt that is what Iran is doing, mostly because they understand that Israel is not actually going to stop. What are the negotiations supposed to be about? Whether or not Iran should go back in time and do less nuclear research?
The fact Israel is not going to stop and negotiate is exactly why Iran is doing this, in fact. Israel is not going to stop, and it will look bad.
I want to make sure something is clear before this all really starts:
For the record, Iran not meeting obligations under IAEA means that they are not longer part (Or just temporarily?) of the peaceful nuclear community as a non-nuclear power, and other signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty may not, for example, sell them peaceful nuclear reactors, or _they_ risk getting kicked out. (It also means they cannot purchase nuclear weapons for peaceful purposes like blowing up their own mountains, a hilarious provision that literally no country has ever taken advantage of but can technically demand nuclear powers provide for them to purchase and use under supervision.)
It does _not_ mean it is legal to overthrow their government. That is generally illegal under international law.
Anyone who is confused as to Iraq and the WMD claims need to understand that Saddam signed a peace treaty that said he would not develop WMDs, and his supposed violation of that would have violated the treaty and continued the war. It was an idiotic and illegal pretext but it was a working pretext. But Iran has signed no such peace treaty. They are legally allowed to develop nuclear weapons, as a country, period, it is no way a violation of international law or considered a valid casus belli for war.
“They are legally allowed to develop nuclear weapons, as a country, period, it is no way a violation of international law or considered a valid casus belli for war.”
You mean it’s not valid to say that Iran violated the IAEA or the NPT. It’s entirely valid to say “we consider Iran’s development of technology suitable for nuclear weapons to be an aggressive act, and in the past their government has made direct threats against our country” and attack for that reason.
You mean it’s not valid to say that Iran violated the IAEA or the NPT. It’s entirely valid to say “we consider Iran’s development of technology suitable for nuclear weapons to be an aggressive act, and in the past their government has made direct threats against our country” and attack for that reason.
What you are describing is not a lawful causus belli for war under international law, no. You can’t just ‘consider’ things to be aggressive acts.
Also, Iran has not actually made ‘direct threats’ against Israel in any sense. Asserting a country should not exist or is illegitimate, which is what I suspect you are talking about, is not a threat.
There sometimes is some level of vagueness around ‘self-defense’, but that usually involves massing troops on borders (Which Iran doesn’t even _share_ with Israel) or making demands that veer very close to threats.
In fact, if anyone has been threatening anyone, it is Israel, who has constantly threatened attacks on Iran over their (again, legal) nuclear program. As has, in fact, the US. Those are actually the sorts of belligerent threats prohibited by international law, ‘Do X or we will invade you’, not ‘We don’t like you, do not think your existence is legitimate, and pray you are destroyed’. Which is actually how all laws about threats are, because threats require coercion, not just hatred.
That framework of international law is to stop war, period. Countries demanding other countries do something or there will be a war are, under the concept of international law, barely short of war itself (Because they will lead directly to war.) and _also_ a violation of international law. Just loathing a country is completely irrelevant to any of this.
This is why actual law-abiding countries, like the US was and then pretended to be for a bit before it dropped the pretense, threaten countries with _other things_, like sanctions.
They are legally allowed to develop nuclear weapons, as a country, period,
Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in theory are still in it. Ergo the world helped them set up their nuclear power program and it’s why they (absurdly) keep claiming they don’t have a nuclear weapons program, just a nuclear power program.
India, Pakistan, and Israel all didn’t sign the NPT so they are all allowed to legally develop nuclear weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons#Iran
not considered a valid casus belli for war.
Iran’s terror group did 10-7.
Iran’s terror group did 10-7.
Hoo, boy.
The US is going to be dropping bombs too, aren’t they?
The question on the table is whether or not Israel has a valid “casus belli for war”.
The mass murder of it’s civilian population by an Iranian terror group carrying out Iranian policy suggests that’s way past “yes”.
Hamas most certainly has their own motivation and agency, but you can arrest both the hit man and the person paying them.
Let’s say that Israel has a valid casus belli. Sure. Slap that piece of paper down on the counter. “VALID CASUS BELLI”.
WHY IN THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO BE DROPPING BOMBS TOO
WHY IN THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO BE DROPPING BOMBS TOO
Because the larger bunker busters are so big they can only be dropped from US planes. Iran has buried some of it’s nuclear sites extremely deep and those larger bombs will probably be needed.
So, Iran is currently unable to control it’s air space and this would be a good time to blow up it’s nuclear weapons program.
Either we do that or we leave it with them.
So our reason for going to war is that an ally who has repeatedly bombed another country over decades, and which has directly attacked that country’s forces in other states (e.g., Syria), was attacked by a group loosely affiliated with that country, and further because the country that has been the aggressor in both this war and historically with the other country doesn’t have big enough planes to drop big enough bombs?
Man, y’all love war way too much.
Not much of a war for us. We drop a few bombs and go home.
This seems to be an opportune time to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. There doesn’t seem to be another way to do it considering the previous “deal” Obama got seems more designed for the world to get used to Iran having that technology than getting rid of it.
Our actual alternative seems to be letting a terror loving band of religious zealots get the bomb. We can pretend real hard that they’re reasonable people when they’re not repressing their people or engaging in terrorism.
All the alternatives are ugly, we have to choose which the least ugly one is.
A reminder: Israel is still occupying part of Lebanon, also. Despite having agreed to withdraw.
Whether Israel is actually an ally of the United States is kind of ambiguous in the first place. There’s no official treaty of alliance between the states, although the US designates Israel as a major non-NATO ally officially for the purposes of arms deals, which the State department is quick to note “MNNA status provides military and economic privileges, it does not entail any security commitments to the designated country.”
I’d be happy the terms alignment, or partner or even client state due to the aid and support the US provides, but the word “ally” has a formal meeting that isn’t met here. It also has an informal meaning that would also apply but that’s colloquial semantic drift rather than something I’d apply to a formal legal situation like discussing casus belli.
That’s weak as hell and you know it.
And that’s without getting into how I find it exceptionally difficult to believe that Israel doesn’t have a B-52 in the back of the hangar.
IT WASN’T IRAQ
IT WAS IRAQ LOBSTER
Google claims Israel doesn’t have or operate B-52s.
“Weak” it might be, but it seems to be a fact and facts are stubborn things.
So we’re going to have to bomb Iran because Israel doesn’t have the extra cash for a B-52 (and doesn’t want to watch a couple of youtubes to figure out how to fly one)?
I am yet unconvinced that that is my problem.
I think everyone is surprised that Israel has control over Iran’s airspace. The Iranians just supposedly upgrade their entire anti-aircraft setup after the last adventure.
It seems the Iranians got Russian equipment which has been shown to work less well than advertised. Similarly the Iranian army seems to have been a lot less well trained and well organized than advertised.
It is very expensive and hard to have a great army. It is much easier and cheaper to just lie about having a great army while pocketing the money you’d spend on it.
I am yet unconvinced that that is my problem.
Terror supporting nuclear armed fanatics who openly proclaim that America should die and think God will protect them. They are also working very hard on missiles that can hit the US and be fitted with nukes.
If you need a mushroom cloud to see a problem with that combo then only a mushroom cloud will convince you.
See, this is where I bring up the whole “crying wolf” thing.
I kinda remember Iraq, and Syria, and Libya, and Egypt.
Oh, this time there’s a wolf for realsies?
I am yet unconvinced that there is a wolf this time.
Perhaps you could compare Iran to Hitler, and it’ll help. Compare me to Chamberlain, maybe?
this is where I bring up the whole “crying wolf” thing.
Their nuclear program is well documented, I suggest you google for the wiki.
Ditto their support of terror groups.
Ditto their desire to destroy various countries.
Ditto them being religious fundamentalists to the point where that’s their motivation for many/most of their international conflicts.
I used the terminology that I did earlier because it’s accurate. Calling it “crying wolf” ignores that I’m pointing to well known facts.
If we’re willing to wait for mushroom clouds before acting then we’ll act less often. However when Iran gets the bomb, or even just is evaluated to be within a few weeks of it, all of their regional rivals will do the same thing.
Do we really think we’ll be better off if Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and so on are all armed with nukes?
Are we sure that all of those countries will become a lot more adult and a lot less driven by their religious nuts if they get nukes?
Yeah, it seems like they’ve been in the final stages of making a bomb since 1984. (Here’s the Daily Show with footage dating back to 1995.)
We’ve practically got no choice, really. It makes you wonder how committed Dumbya was to peace if he wasn’t willing to do to Iran what he did to Iraq.
So you’re saying Iran’s nuclear program isn’t a problem?
I’d say that they are somewhere in the ballpark of being the same amount of problem as Saddam Hussein’s mobile WMD tractor trailers.
What Iran has publicly admitted to goes way beyond that. What has been confirmed by the international community goes much further than what they’ve admitted to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Secret_expansion_and_weaponization_efforts_(1990s%E2%80%932002)
Also: If we’re going to consider Iran’s nuclear program fictional then we need to ask why so many of it’s non-Jewish neighbors support military action against it and/or think they need nukes to counter Iran’s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_on_the_nuclear_program_of_Iran
I didn’t say fictional!
The roving WMD trucks had been verified to exist! There’s a wikipedia page devoted to why we thought they existed and everything.
The entire world, including Iran, know and admit that Iran’s nuclear program exists. The sole point of dispute is whether it’s for “peaceful” purposes.
Iran has decades of lies about it’s program (not disputed), the program itself is super focused on the parts of the nuclear cycle that can be used for military purposes (not disputed), it doesn’t supply enough power to be worth the cost nor to locations that need power (not disputed), and I could go on.
For a peaceful nuclear power program it looks and acts and is treated by everyone including Iran as a nuclear weapons program.
Decades of lies, you say?
Do these decades of lies color your opinion of the things that they say?
Do you feel it’s reasonable to not believe these people who have spent decades lying?
You are responding with general statements which are irrelevant to the specific answers I’ve given.
Nothing I’ve said is disputed, so there is nothing to lie about.
If you want something to dispute that would be Israel’s claim that Iran is headed for a nuke right now, but I haven’t put that out there because the undisputed facts are so damning that it doesn’t matter.
Iran’s nuclear weapons program is designed so it can be a few months away from a nuke but not step over that line. This is why Israel keeps claiming that they’re a few months away from getting a nuke, they are.
So when the inspectors tell us that Iran isn’t cooperating, we don’t know what that means. It could mean that Iran is finally getting a bomb or it could mean that Iran is pretending to try to force Israel to back off in Gaza so it’s proxies will survive.
So, like, for this discussion of how we need to attack this Middle Eastern country because they are so very close to developing WMDs, you find that my concerns are irrelevant?
I wish you the best of luck persuading people that, this time, it’s different.
you find that my concerns are irrelevant?
These specific concerns? Yes. Relevant concerns don’t question the existence of the basic undisputed facts. Facts are stubborn things.
If you’re going to try to insist that the facts aren’t real and it’s a conspiracy, then all I have to do is point back to the undisputed facts and we should move on.
So again, Iran’s nuclear program exists and is obviously a weapons program.
Relevant concerns should point to just how ugly war with Iran is and claim the alternative is better.
However if you’re claiming the alternative to war is puppies and rainbows because Iran’s nuclear program doesn’t exist and they’re a peaceful people then you’re rewriting reality.
Oh, I wouldn’t use the term “conspiracy”. Not for something like “Middle Eastern country being very close to developing WMDs”.
Hell, that’s something that we see all the time!
A lot of this is Saddam’s fault.
He killed something like 30 thousand people with his WMDs. That let him win (or not lose) a war with Iran and outright win a civil war.
Everyone else in the area observed and learned.
I sure hope they catch him!
There is nothing good that is going to come from this.
The unfortunate reality is all options are bad.
Leaving the lunatics in Iran alone results in a half dozen more unstable nuclear nations.
I wouldn’t call the Iranian Clerical Regime unstable. It’s one of the stablest authoritarian regimes out there. Trump nixed the idea of getting rid of the Supreme Leader directly and there isn’t evidence that if the Iranian Clerical Regime goes than something stable is ready to be a provisional government. A collapsed Iranian Clerical Regime could be a lot worse, leading to waives of distabling refugees.
The ideological energy of the Iranian Clerical regime was about that of a Communist state in the late 1980s. It would be better to let it slowly collapse from the inside even if that is nail-biting frustrating for everybody else including the Iranians.
If we’re expecting it to fall apart then “stable” isn’t the word I’d use even if it would be one of the “stablest” of new nuclear states.
And again, we’re not talking about just Iran. Everyone else will change their actions because Iran constantly threatens everyone in the area.
Turkey, Egypt, & Saudi Arabia aren’t going to let Iran threaten them with nukes without being able to counter with them and that’s just to start.
We saw this same dynamic with Pakistan and India.
A collapsed Iranian Clerical Regime could be a lot worse, leading to waives of distabling refugees.
Also, it’s likely the Clerical Regime is what is _stopping_ the development of nuclear weapons. The current Supreme Leader is against nuclear weapons.
It’s possible he’s lying, of course, but it’s also possibly that what is happening is that the Iranian government’s military research is coming as close as it can to developing them without _technically_ developing them, and that’s where things are paused because the guy in charge doesn’t want them.
If he’s replaced, or the government falls down and rebuilds, who knows what happens?
it’s likely the Clerical Regime is what is _stopping_ the development of nuclear weapons. The current Supreme Leader is against nuclear weapons.
The idea that the Clerics don’t have enough control over the government of Iran to get what they want divides by zero.
Allowing Iran to have nukes might be the least bad option even though it is incredibly sucky option. Sometimes least bad is the best you can do.
I would rather deal with a refugee crisis than with nuclear war and/or nuclear terrorism.
I’d even rather deal with 5 refugee crisis than those.
The argument against nukes being misused is typically “they wouldn’t dare”, and we’ve seen a lot of breathtakingly bad misjudgments in that area of the world.
Hamas thought it would win against Israel. Saddam thought giving up his WMDs and then telling everyone he was lying about that would give him the best of all worlds. Iran thought none of the sh*t it’s proxies stirred up would be blamed on it.
Nobody is going to be dealing with the refugee crisis and you know it. America under Trump and the Republicans certainly isn’t going to be generous and accept a single refugee created by this stupid and useless action by Netanyahu.
Nobody is going to be dealing with the refugee crisis and you know it.
True, but so what? The world has several refugee crisis and is just fine.
Nuclear war and/or nuclear terrorism would be a lot worse. They have the strong potential to overturn civilization.
I understand that there’s a lot of new real estate available on the Gaza strip. What better use for it than settling refugees?
The refugees will be thrilled to have a place to live and rebuild and surely will be grateful for the opportunity to live in peace in a safe place with a higher standard of living.
A steelman argument for dropping US delivered bombs on a specific Nuclear target has some benefits:
1. It provides an exit strategy for everyone (including Iran).
2. If there’s no Nuke program in the Mountain, US/Israel bounce some rubble and declare the problem cleared to negotiate peace/ceasefire
3. If there’s a Nuke program in the Mountain, and IF the bunker busters can bust the bunker and destroy the current iteration of the Nuke program, Israel can declare the problem cleared to negotiate peace/ceasefire
4. It doesn’t require ‘regime change’ or massive civilian casualties.
5. It exposes Iranian Leadership as heading a toothless coalition… internal politics may heave, but theoretically follow internal dynamics.
I matters, of course, what the vision for the negotiated exit might look like. Trump’s ‘Unconditional Surrender’ is dumb … and I don’t place much (or any) confidence in him navigating a diplomatic pas de deux that puts Iran on a different path. But, if there was such an oppty, it would look like the naked drubbing Iran has taken (limited to command/control with low civilian casualties) with a fig-leaf of modesty extended to Iran to re-assess it’s role in middle-east affairs… possibly with slightly different voices in the background.
A mere ‘ceasefire’ (most likely ending) resets the Nuclear clock (a win for Israel) but also probably impresses upon Iran the need to triple or quadruple down on the Nuclear capability they decidedly want and are pursuing.
The best ‘steelman neutral outcome’ I’d be willing to project? Assuming there’s a fig-leaf and sufficient incentive to forgo NORK-like status, Iranian conservatives (vs. ‘hardliners’) may decide that the bluff has been called and a long-game may be a better strategy to pursue. Not exactly ‘peace in the middle east’ but, say, and ‘abundance’ policy for Iran; putting Iran first, and abandoning the Sunni destabilization project for a generation or two.
::Pawnstar best I can do gif::
Why can’t we just give $100,000,000 or so to some revolutionaries who want to reinstall the king?
I would go to a “Some Kings, I Guess” rally if it’d avoid Iraq/Libya/Egypt/Syria 2: Electric Boogaloo.
*Gestures broadly at the $2.3 Trillion we dumped into Afghanistan
“No! This time it’d be different!”
See? I am tempted to say “I just can’t even”.
Last time we backed the king, it didn’t work out so well for us.
Is that what we’re calling it?
Hey, I personally think “not my circus, not my monkeys” is the way to go. If that’s not on the table “they revolutioned themselves into this, they can revolution themselves out of it, here’s a couple hundred large” is a much better play than “Let’s go. In and out, 20 minutes adventure.”
That’s part of it, but you might want to chat with Mr. Mossadeqh. The Iranians still resent us for that dirty business, as they damn well should.
By the way, I’m not John McCain — bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran, and all that. I just don’t think backing another coup is a good play either. There may not be any play to make. The world is sometimes like that.
There’s a lot of dirty business in the region that we’re still resented for, I understand.
I see “what’s one more?” as a reason to run with “not my circus, etc” instead of a reason to start pushing buttons in the hopes that this time will be different than the last dozen times (which includes the last two times we orchestrated leadership reorganizations on the region in question).
“can’t we just give $100,000,000 or so to some revolutionaries who want to reinstall the king?”
I’m sure we do, although it costs significantly less for stipends to keep Princelings from working, and significantly more to fund a revolution.
BUT, the steelman argument is an *Exit* strategy that aims to foreclose escalation to boots on the ground… and it isn’t aimed at regime change.
Now… to your (and I think Andrew’s) oblique point that you can’t trust Trump and any party that contains Lindsey Graham to stop at just one Kinetic Bunker Busting sortie? Sure, but I’d make that counter-point explicit not implied.
That’s a better concern, but it becomes a concern about a potential future escalation (that’s reasonable to be concerned about) and that a functioning Congress could take action against via War Powers and/or ending the 2001 AUMF.
But yes, I agree that that would be a very good concern to raise.
My oblique point is that I have been promised many things about many regime changes in the region and not one, no not one, has turned out in the ballpark of what was promised.
“This one won’t be like Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria or Libya or Egypt!” is the position that has the burden of proof.
“No, it won’t” has a pretty good track record.
Yes, but the steelman is specifically designed to avoid the regime change trap.
“It’s not a regime change, we’re just bombing some sites! As soon as we’re done bombing, we’re done! No Pottery Barn!”
Honestly, I’d rather sell Israel a B-52 at a great interest rate, sell them bombs at even better interest rates, and ask them to send postcards periodically.
I think it’s fine to be wary of escalation and quagmires. No argument on that being a legitimate concern.
On the B-52 thing, the time for that was a couple-/few-years ago. The window for this strategic decision only has a timeframe measured in days/weeks. Bear in mind, though, that the reason Israel *doesn’t* have strategic bombing capability is that the US wanted to reserve that type of decision to itself.
Even if there was a guarantee something like that would go well (which…lol) it still wouldn’t be worth doing. We may still be the most powerful country in the world but we are not the hyper power of 25 years ago. We can’t both act as a counter balance to Chinese expansion and global hegemony and still have a little fun in the desert to scratch the itch of ME hobbyists in Arlington and Langley. Our industrial and logistical capacities are no longer up to snuff and we can’t waste time, effort, and ammo on this kind of crap.
3. If there’s a Nuke program in the Mountain, and IF the bunker busters can bust the bunker and destroy the current iteration of the Nuke program, Israel can declare the problem cleared to negotiate peace/ceasefire
This one assumes Israel is operating in good faith, and the fact that they’ve been saying for 30 years that Iran is months or years from dozens, even hundreds of nuclear weapons, suggests that they are not.
The Iranian nuclear program is designed to be a year or few months away from building a nuke forever. So yes, they were a year or two away from getting a bomb decades ago.
As time goes on, they’re just short of building more bombs because they expand their base stock.
It’s not just Israel which has a problem with this. There’s a long list of other countries plus neutral UN agencies who have pointed out this is a big problem.
Depends on what you mean by good faith.
Israel is operating here under parallel motivations: first, degrading the military capacity of the primary sponsor of non-state military actors like Hamas and Hezbollah (and others) and secondly concern over nuclear access of that power.
Whether or not the nuclear threat is real Israel has an interest in rolling up the Proxies right into the sponsor. It’s a risk, but it’s a strategic decision they can make.
One a smaller level… if you mean that the US can’t trust Israel to promise that they will stop pursuing their primary objectives degrading Iranian military capabilities once the US does this one thing? I agree. Israel will stop when their list is complete and using the US to complete that list is something the US shouldn’t be naive about.
As for whether Israel will stop after degrading Iranian Nuclear (and military) capabilities? We have ample previous experience that they do exactly that; the bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 demonstrated ‘good faith’ in saying that they were going to destroy the reactor and not, say, invade Iraq seeking Unconditional Surrender.
So, I can agree that Israel would use the US in good faith and bad faith to achieve their ends; but I don’t think I agree that their oft executed plans of military degradation aren’t in good faith to their stated intentions; finally, I could tentatively agree that the Nuclear program is part of a propaganda campaign such that it doesn’t matter for Israel whether the Nuke program at Fordow is 18 mos or 1 month away from weapons because the primary objective is to roll-up the Sponsor…. so that might be a bad faith propaganda tool depending on the *actual* state of the program that no-one can verify — in good faith.
Not disagreeing at all and I think your comment illustrates the primary ‘big picture’ foreign policy issue with all of this. The United States’ strategic interests do not always align with Israel’s but even under Trump, whose few redeeming qualities may include a vague awareness of that, we have a foreign policy establishment (and despite everything else, a mainstream press!) whose knee jerk reaction is to go 0 daylight between Washington and Tel Aviv. It’s enough to make you think, even if just for a second, that there could be a brain rolling around under Tucker Carlson’s hair helmet.
But I think even that sentiment is rolled-up in an internal dynamic the clouds the fact that the US has a parallel interest *it* has been pursing regarding the Iranian State and Nuclear program.
There’s a separate US interest in degrading Fordow as *part* of it’s self-interest and as part of it’s negotiations with Iran.
I think it’s a (potential) mis-read to see this as US foreign policy doing Israel’s bidding. US should assess whether Iranian ‘good faith’ has been exhausted and this is an oppty to reset to negotiating table.
In that sense it coincides with Israeli actions, not bidden by Israel’s wishes.
In steelman theory… In practice? I have no idea who’s bought by whom and what conflicts of interest for good policy making exist for anything related to the Middle East (or any policy for that matter).
Sure, and truth be told, I am almost convinced by your steelman!
The reason I still wouldn’t do it is that I doubt even a successful strike with our bunker buster bomb with no further military action or entanglements will resolve the non proliferation problem in a way that’s sustained over the timeline we need it to be, which is probably 25-30 years rather than 4 or 5 or maybe even less.
I agree, the biggest unknown unknown is the execution of the diplomatic follow-up. I personally do not have confidence in Trump/Rubio (or in US foreign policy since, about, say, 1992.)
The Iranian Clerical Regime told Hamas that 10/7 was a dumb idea and they wanted no part in it. Iran did latter egg on Hezbollah in providing support to Hamas after the Israel-Hamas War started to save face though. Blaming 10/7 on Iran is still straining factual credibility. They told Hamas that it was a completely stupid idea and that they weren’t going to aid them in anyway in doing it.
OK, so did they warn the Israelis? Having armed them and trained them to attack civilians, it strains credibility to claim they had no part in this otherwise.
Netanyahu didn’t listen to Israeli intelligence and IDF soldiers telling him that something was up and something big was going to happen in Gaza. I’m not sure why the Islamic Republic of Iran would have more credibility.
That doesn’t answer my question.
If Iran thought it was a bad idea, tried to stop it, and failed because Netanyahu is an idiot then Iran’s moral involvement is a lot less.
Since that didn’t happen, we have… They armed them, trained them to attack civilians, knew the attack was coming, and didn’t attempt to stop it by warning anyone who could act. So yes, they’re involved and have a lot of responsibility.
Control and direction is an important element of the “substantial involvement” threshold of determining whether an attack by proxy was aggression which invites a casus belli in response. That it happened against their wishes and advice is a pretty good argument against Iranian “substantial involvement” as they clearly didn’t control Hamas then.
What you’re suggesting is a kind of “duty to warn” which both doesn’t exist and you’d probably strongly object to your own country being held to in the future.
pretty good argument against Iranian “substantial involvement” as they clearly didn’t control Hamas then.
Iran armed them. Trained them. Instructed their allies to back them up after(?) the fact and occasionally did so themselves. And let’s not forget that although this specific tactic may have been off leash the goal for both is the destruction of the Israeli state and the death of it’s civilians.
With all that I’d say we’re well past “substantial involvement”.
Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in theory are still in it. Ergo the world helped them set up their nuclear power program and it’s why they (absurdly) keep claiming they don’t have a nuclear weapons program, just a nuclear power program.
Actually, no. While they _should_ have been provided assistance with their peaceful nuclear program under the NPT, the US has repeatedly interfered with other countries providing that assistance, even long before any allegations of violations of the NPT started.
Considering that Iran has uranium mines, and the ability to enrich said uranium, and hence is getting very little out of the NPT at all, I would say I suspect they are going to leave…except that’s pointless to say now, as they have just said they are leaving.
India, Pakistan, and Israel all didn’t sign the NPT so they are all allowed to legally develop nuclear weapons.
‘Being in violation of the NPT’ and ‘illegal’ are not synonyms. It is not illegal to violate the NPT. Despite what people think, there are things that are illegal under international law, but simply ‘violating an agreement you voluntarily entered into that you wouldn’t do things’ is very rarely one of them. (Unlike, for example, bombing another country.)
Incidentally, even if it was ‘illegal’, the procedure would be for the UN to authorize an invasion. Which it has not. That is the only way the invasion could be lawful. The UN would not actually do this, however, because that’s insane.
(Also, incidentally, a pretty strong argument can be made that nuclear weapons are a war crime to possess under the current laws of war, period, end of story. They cannot be operated with enough precision to refrain from killing massive amounts of civilians, and indeed the threat of killing civilians is the point, and hence they are inherently illegal to even own as military armament. Of course, no one in any government is making that argument.)
The Iranian clerical regime seems to be Castro’s Cuba of the Middle East. Lots of people know that they are a completely horrible regime with all sorts of domestic abuses but they want better relations with Iran because they find the other countries in the area considered more odious. For some reason, many people who can’t stomach being diplomatic friends with Saudi Arabia can stomach being diplomatic friends with Iran.
The issue is that Iran and the middle east generally are small beans. The Obama administration understood this hence the push for a resolution of the nuclear issue so that we could focus our efforts on China. At this point the Israelis might as well be on Xi Jinping’s payroll.
And 47 understands that the specter of Iran will get
people like Dark to look away from his other failings and dangers.
Well, the King of Iran is tweeting:
“The Islamic Republic has come to an end and is falling.
What has begun is irreversible. The future is bright and together we will navigate this sharp turn in history. Now is the time to stand; it is time to take back Iran. May I be with you soon.”
The NY Times is reporting that Iran might be preparing to fire missiles on US bases. This is bad, very bad.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/us/politics/iran-israel-us-bases.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwY2xjawK_JUNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFvQXpmcnIxWUNmMklqY0piAR4sMRQfLqKRQkc2BXdMyqTPik-fDsqr81WDvh5SZ6ZJkxoWxflmUa366B7Qjg_aem_-sPGLQ-TmnTvSSlP-XcpJg
Was Judith Miller on the byline?