Israel strikes Iran

[Ken]

The article doesn't say what you claim it says... but carry on. Believe whatever you want. I don't care.

Read to the end: "Israel, he said, was given a “plausible denial green light.” at the very time that the US was continuing negotiations with Iran and communicating that the Israelis would not strike as long as the the talks were ongoing.

Either the US and Israelis jointly-planned this from the beginning. Or the US gave tacit or direct approval to Israel to attack while the US was providing diplomatic cover. Either way it is basically a distinction without a difference. The US knowingly allowed its diplomatic negotiations to be used as camouflage for air strikes.

[HondurasKeiser]

What in your estimation made it a good deal?

It forbide iran form getting a nuclear weapon. It required Iran to allow inspections by independent international organizations to ensure that it was not enriching uranium.

this are the major provisions

irandeal.png

Source https://www.economist.com/news/briefing ... -bit-safer

I really doubt trump can get even a similar deal after the strikes

From my perspective it merely kicked the can down the road and did nothing to actually keep Iran from ultimately obtaining nuclear weapons; which has been the stated goal of everyone across the spectrum.

[Ken]

What in your estimation made it a good deal?

It forbide iran form getting a nuclear weapon. It required Iran to allow inspections by independent international organizations to ensure that it was not enriching uranium.

this are the major provisions

irandeal.png

Source https://www.economist.com/news/briefing ... -bit-safer

I really doubt trump can get even a similar deal after the strikes

From my perspective it merely kicked the can down the road and did nothing to actually keep Iran from ultimately obtaining nuclear weapons; which has been the stated goal of everyone across the spectrum.

We have learned from history that while air power can be an effective strategic weapon, it is a very ineffective tactical weapon, especially when it comes to these sorts of attempted precision strikes. The Iranians are not stupid enough to leave their nuclear weapons program sitting around in places where it can be destroyed by precision air strikes.

So the more likely objective here on the part of Israel is to torpedo nuclear negotiations with Iran that could lead to the future normalizing of relations and reductions of sanctions on Iran.

[HondurasKeiser]

It forbide iran form getting a nuclear weapon. It required Iran to allow inspections by independent international organizations to ensure that it was not enriching uranium.

this are the major provisions

irandeal.png

Source https://www.economist.com/news/briefing ... -bit-safer

I really doubt trump can get even a similar deal after the strikes

From my perspective it merely kicked the can down the road and did nothing to actually keep Iran from ultimately obtaining nuclear weapons; which has been the stated goal of everyone across the spectrum.

We have learned from history that while air power can be an effective strategic weapon, it is a very ineffective tactical weapon, especially when it comes to these sorts of attempted precision strikes. The Iranians are not stupid enough to leave their nuclear weapons program sitting around in places where it can be destroyed by precision air strikes.

So the more likely objective here on the part of Israel is to torpedo nuclear negotiations with Iran that could lead to the future normalizing of relations and reductions of sanctions on Iran.

I think it may be prudent to sit and hold off on arm-chair commentary until we see what the actual results of this strike are. What’s more, your conjecture above about Trump being in on it and your conjecture here about Israel doing this to torpedo the negotiations cannot both be true. Pick a theory please.

[Nomad]

It’s particularly galling to see “prayer” for a belligerent.

They're both belligerent in this case...but regardless. We should pray for both.

There really wasn't any reason for Israel to start up with their airstrikes. "Iran is developing nuclear weapons!" is a refrain I have been hearing my entire life - and doesn't Israel have nuclear weapons, too? Would it be OK for Iran to conduct airstrikes against Israel because they are building nuclear bombs?

I can't understand how Israels actions will help their cause but my guess is that they are worried that a Iran with nukes will actually go through with what Khamenei and Co. (plus all their proxy militias...Hezbollah) have been threatening to do for years, which is wipe Israel off the map. Thats probably why they are trying to eliminate this from happening rather than waiting around for them to actually get nukes and then potentially use them within Israels borders.

[JohnH]

I can't understand how Israels actions will help their cause but my guess is that they are worried that a Iran with nukes will actually go through with what Khamenei and Co. (plus all their proxy militias...Hezbollah) have been threatening to do for years, which is wipe Israel off the map. Thats probably why they are trying to eliminate this from happening rather than waiting around for them to actually get nukes and then potentially use them within Israels borders.

I think it's an unfounded fear; Pakistan has also been quite anti-Israel and also has nuclear weapons. So far, the only time a nuclear weapon has ever been used was the U.S. against Japan. With mutually assured destruction the prevailing nuclear doctrine, alongside "no first strike", nuclear-armed states simply don't get into nuclear conflicts with each other.

Russia has been (effectively) at war with NATO now for 3 years and nobody even thinks of going near their nuclear arsenals.

[Ken]

From my perspective it merely kicked the can down the road and did nothing to actually keep Iran from ultimately obtaining nuclear weapons; which has been the stated goal of everyone across the spectrum.

We have learned from history that while air power can be an effective strategic weapon, it is a very ineffective tactical weapon, especially when it comes to these sorts of attempted precision strikes. The Iranians are not stupid enough to leave their nuclear weapons program sitting around in places where it can be destroyed by precision air strikes.

So the more likely objective here on the part of Israel is to torpedo nuclear negotiations with Iran that could lead to the future normalizing of relations and reductions of sanctions on Iran.

I think it may be prudent to sit and hold off on arm-chair commentary until we see what the actual results of this strike are. What’s more, your conjecture above about Trump being in on it and your conjecture here about Israel doing this to torpedo the negotiations cannot both be true. Pick a theory please.

Oh please. Nearly every post in this entire thread is “armchair commentary” and will continue to be so since we will never likely know (1) the actual secret communications between Israel and the US, and (2) the actual extent of any damage. Both the actual commentary here is “armchair commentary” as is the links to Twitter commentary.

And yes, both can be true at the same time. The original Iranian JCPOA was a multi-party agreement including the EU and all the permanent members of the UN Security Council. And there is an entire international sanctions regime against IRAN involving most western countries. Nuclear talks are one of the main vehicles that Iran would use to normalize relationships with the rest of the developed world and to start clawing back sanctions. In other words, it would be the carrot for them to negotiate in the first place. That goes WAY WAY beyond simple bi-lateral talks between the US and Iran. There are many more players here than just the US and Iran.

If the US wanted to head off normalization of relations between say the EU and Iran, one way to do that would be to paint Iran as unwilling to negotiate. Israel’s obvious long-term objective here is to prevent normalization of relations with the rest of the world outside the US. Which is always likely to be the most hard-line western nation against Iran. In other words, start negotiations that they had no intention of completing with any sort of reasonable deal. And then show that Iran is intransigent.

I mean there are a whole lot of possible scenarios.

1. The Trump administration restarted Iran talks in 2025 because they realized that their abandonment of the original Iran JPCOA back in 2018 was a mistake and they wanted to get back to the point that the Obama Administration brought us to in 2015. Seems unlikely to me since if anything, the current Trump Administration is more hard-line than the previous one.

2. The Trump administration restarted Iran talks in 2025 with no intention of actually reaching some new deal. But more to forestall any normalization of relations between Iran and the EU and other western nations. Because if talks fail and Iran can be blamed for their failure that strengthens the hand of hardliners who want to prevent the rollback of any sanctions.

3. This was also part of a larger strategy to provide cover for Israeli air strikes that both Netanyahu and the Trump Administration hardliners wanted to see happen.

Both 2 and 3 can be true.

[HondurasKeiser]

I can't understand how Israels actions will help their cause but my guess is that they are worried that a Iran with nukes will actually go through with what Khamenei and Co. (plus all their proxy militias...Hezbollah) have been threatening to do for years, which is wipe Israel off the map. Thats probably why they are trying to eliminate this from happening rather than waiting around for them to actually get nukes and then potentially use them within Israels borders.

I think it's an unfounded fear; Pakistan has also been quite anti-Israel and also has nuclear weapons. So far, the only time a nuclear weapon has ever been used was the U.S. against Japan. With mutually assured destruction the prevailing nuclear doctrine, alongside "no first strike", nuclear-armed states simply don't get into nuclear conflicts with each other.

Russia has been (effectively) at war with NATO now for 3 years and nobody even thinks of going near their nuclear arsenals.

I imagine if you were an Israeli living within striking distance if Iran, you’d feel differently.

[Ken]

I can't understand how Israels actions will help their cause but my guess is that they are worried that a Iran with nukes will actually go through with what Khamenei and Co. (plus all their proxy militias...Hezbollah) have been threatening to do for years, which is wipe Israel off the map. Thats probably why they are trying to eliminate this from happening rather than waiting around for them to actually get nukes and then potentially use them within Israels borders.

I think it's an unfounded fear; Pakistan has also been quite anti-Israel and also has nuclear weapons. So far, the only time a nuclear weapon has ever been used was the U.S. against Japan. With mutually assured destruction the prevailing nuclear doctrine, alongside "no first strike", nuclear-armed states simply don't get into nuclear conflicts with each other.

Russia has been (effectively) at war with NATO now for 3 years and nobody even thinks of going near their nuclear arsenals.

I imagine if you were an Israeli living within striking distance if Iran, you’d feel differently.

If I was an Israeli I would want my government to pursue policies that make peace and stability more likely in my neighborhood. Not policies that make things worse.

Now I grant you that Israel lives in a neighborhood with a lot of bad actors. But even so, they have choices between policies that empower bad actors and policies that tend to isolate them and diminish their influence.

[HondurasKeiser]

I think it's an unfounded fear; Pakistan has also been quite anti-Israel and also has nuclear weapons. So far, the only time a nuclear weapon has ever been used was the U.S. against Japan. With mutually assured destruction the prevailing nuclear doctrine, alongside "no first strike", nuclear-armed states simply don't get into nuclear conflicts with each other.

Russia has been (effectively) at war with NATO now for 3 years and nobody even thinks of going near their nuclear arsenals.

I imagine if you were an Israeli living within striking distance if Iran, you’d feel differently.

If I was an Israeli I would want my government to pursue policies that make peace and stability more likely in my neighborhood. Not policies that make things worse.

Now I grant you that Israel lives in a neighborhood with a lot of bad actors. But even so, they have choices between policies that empower bad actors and policies that tend to isolate them and diminish their influence.

Prior to a few days ago, what choices had Israel made that justified being threatened with fiery annihilation by Iran?