Israel strikes Iran

[Szdfan]

They have a serious concern about being boxed in by the US and Israel and eventually be toppled by a CIA backed coup which has happened in surrounding nations.

Of course Iran was the subject of a 1953 CIA sponsored coup that installed the Shah. I think one of the reasons why Iran pursues nuclear weapons is the desire for autonomy and the fear of foreign interference. That aspect isn’t irrational, since there is a long history of foreign domination. One of the things that launched the coup was when the Iranian government nationalized the oil industry which had been dominated by the British after the Anglo-Soviet invasion of 1941.

I think there’s a lot about the Iranian government that’s irrational and dangerous, but not the fear of foreign domination and control. There’s precedent.

[JohnH]

The larger pattern actually reinforces the importance of a country having nuclear weapons as a deterrent to preemptive attacks. I don't think this makes the world safer as those that trust in bombs seem to.

It's hard to understand how you get from "trusting in bombs doesn't make us safer" to "it's okay for Iran to build nuclear weapons, and it's bad for other countries to try to stop them".

Does the blinding irony of an empire with more nuclear bombs than nearly anyone else, and the only one that ever actually melted off the faces of citizens with them, righteously deciding that they aren't necessary for other countries, actually escape you?

I’m against nuclear proliferation in general. However, I don’t think nuclear disarmament of America and Russia is realistic in the near term.

[Ken]

Today in 2025 we live in a different world than 1945. Upwards of 75 million people died in WW2. What percentage of them died from nuclear weapons? That is simple math exercise.

The US and its allies had basically three options for bringing the Pacific war to an end in 1945: (1) Military blockade of Japan along with continued conventional aerial bombing, (2) conventional military invasion of Japan, (3) force surrender through the use of nuclear weapons.

Which of those three options would have ended the war the quickest with the least amount of death and suffering? Put yourself in Truman's shoes. Which strategy for ending the war do you choose? A war in which by 1945 had a weekly death toll across the Pacific theater that was well north of a Hiroshima's worth of people per week. In both Europe and the Pacific, 1945 was the deadliest year of the war. In fact, in just China alone, people were probably dying at a rate of a Hiroshima per week by 1945.

But we don't live in 1945. The question for American and other decision-makers across the globe is what kind of world order provides the safest and most just world in 2025? One in which nuclear weapons do not proliferate, obviously. But also one in which we have a robust enough international order such that smaller countries do not feel the need to seek nuclear weapons and are also not rewarded for doing so. So what does that world look like?

Safe for who is the question?

A world that provides both safety and justice (freedom) to people of all nations both large and small. And a world in which might does not make right.

We live in a complex world of competing objectives and no simple/trite answers to complicated questions. It is like when people call for "law and order" when those two concepts are actually opposed. A society that prioritizes law may have a great deal of disorder as we see here in the west. Whereas a society that prioritizes order may be lawless as we see in most dictatorships.

[Heirbyadoption]

Safe for who is the question?

I have really struggled with this question (even before you asked it here, lol). Should we advocated for a safe world for ALL? Absolutely! And I realize that there is very much a "kingdoms of the world" component in the real-time context of this question (as evidenced by the OP of this thread itself), but in the meantime, as we struggle toward safety for ALL, is it wrong to advocate for safety for SOME, NOW, until safety for ALL, EVENTUALLY can be achieved? Is it actually unfair and inherently immoral to advocate for safety for at least SOME, NOW (as much as lies in our power), even if safety is not being achieved for ALL, YET, if safety for ALL is our goal?

I realize the question smells pretty pragmatic, but I don't ask it as a cop-out, and I really DO think believers should be able to ask and answer it without sacrificing the end goal - I'm curious how you would answer it. And whether the context in which it is asked makes a difference on how you answer...

[Nomad]

The larger pattern actually reinforces the importance of a country having nuclear weapons as a deterrent to preemptive attacks. I don't think this makes the world safer as those that trust in bombs seem to.

Iran has been attacking "preemptively" for years via their proxy militias without nukes. They've also attacked nations who have nukes preemptively...including attempting to assassinate the president. So it obviously wasn't a deterrent for them.

[Nomad]

The larger pattern actually reinforces the importance of a country having nuclear weapons as a deterrent to preemptive attacks. I don't think this makes the world safer as those that trust in bombs seem to.

Iran has been attacking "preemptively" for years via their proxy militias without nukes. They've also attacked nations who have nukes preemptively...including attempting to assassinate the president. So it obviously wasn't a deterrent for them.

I should probably say "alleged assassination attempt"...to be more accurate...

[temporal1]

continuing prayers ..

AP / Trump holds out reported Israel-Iran ceasefire deal as validation for his gamble of US airstrikes
https://apnews.com/article/trump-iran-o ... 09d539996e

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Monday said the “12 day war” between Israel and Iran was set to end in a ceasefire, holding out the reported deal as validation for his strategic gamble of ordering U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites.

“It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE,”
Trump posted on social media. .. ..

.. The ceasefire announcement came after Iran attempted to retaliate for the U.S. assault with a Monday missile strike aimed at a major U.S. military installation in the Gulf nation of Qatar. Trump separately thanked Iran on social media for giving the U.S. and allies “early notice” of the retaliation.

The president expressed hope that Tehran — with its reprisal for the U.S. bombardment of three key Iranian nuclear facilities — had “gotten it all out of their ‘system’” and that the moment would lead to a de-escalation in the Israel-Iran war.

“I am pleased to report that NO Americans were harmed, and hardly any damage was done,” Trump said on social media.
“I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured.
Perhaps Iran can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same.” ..

.. The financial markets appeared to respond to the tensions with a relative measure of calm, given the possibility that Iran could try to block oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. But oil prices that had been elevated when the war started between Israel and Iran fell roughly 5% on Monday to $65 a barrel, quickly appearing to erase the risk that the war could cause energy prices and overall inflation to spike worldwide.

Trump earlier Monday called on the U.S. and allied oil-producing nations to pump more oil and “KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN.”

[Ernie]

Iran was further pushed into a corner with this attack and I think its highly unlikely that even if they agreed to a "treaty" that they would actually follow it as they likely believe the treaty is unsustainable with the US or Israel.

I was just thinking this yesterday about another scenario. Who keeps their word anymore? It seems like nearly every country, nearly every world leader, and nearly every political system all break their word in the 21st century. There are a few lower-level politicians who seem to be people of integrity, but over 99% of leaders will do or say the opposite of what they agreed to if it helps them make friends with certain people. And yet these same people will trust the word or agreements of others who have proven that their word is no good.

[barnhart]

The population of Iran is young on average, the masses don't remember a government besides the Islamic Republic. I have thought for years there is likely western friendly sentiment below the surface. That is why I wasn't alarmed by the Obama administration offering an olive branch, I hoped for the end of the regime and the emergence of a freer, friendlier government. That seems even less likely now, outside threat pulls together.

[R7ehr]

Iran was further pushed into a corner with this attack and I think its highly unlikely that even if they agreed to a "treaty" that they would actually follow it as they likely believe the treaty is unsustainable with the US or Israel.

I was just thinking this yesterday about another scenario. Who keeps their word anymore? It seems like nearly every country, nearly every world leader, and nearly every political system all break their word in the 21st century. There are a few lower-level politicians who seem to be people of integrity, but over 99% of leaders will do or say the opposite of what they agreed to if it helps them make friends with certain people. And yet these same people will trust the word or agreements of others who have proven that their word is no good.

They don’t need to keep their word, because the populous doesn’t punish them for breaking their word. In fact their rabid supporters seem to be in complete support of it, so long for certain issues. It’s a devil of a deal, really. The deal is to lie, and to be lied to.