91 ms·
U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites
- MangoToupe 1y agoSo much for humanity learning from its mistakes....
- cempaka 1y ago[flagged]
- hagbard_c 1y agoThat remains to be seen and, in another universe, could have been said about someone not keeping a nation from creating nuclear weaponry which it subsequently used against its opponents.
- arp242 1y ago"But this time it's different!" IMHO the Israeli policy of punching everyone so hard they're reeling is a massive mistake for Israel in the long term. It works great short-term, but 50 years? 100 years? Who knows what the world will look like then, and being surrounded by enemies is not going to work well when you no longer have your fancy US-backed missile shields and whatnot. The best long-term bet is for normalised relationship with its neighbours, and every time something like this happens that gets set back 20 years at least. Then again, they had already given up on that with how it treated the Palestinians both in Gaza and West-Bank... This doesn't mean military action is never an option under any circumstances, but no nation can perpetuate hostilities forever. Whether it's 50, 100, or 200 years: this has a massive risk of coming back to bite Israel hard.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoYeah IMO the last 2 years (and especially 5 hours) have pretty much permanently shattered Israel's privileged child status in the US. Their actions in Gaza have fractured leftwing support, and dragging the US into this war have fractured rightwing support. Hope they're building other friendships in the region, I don't see the unquestioning US patronage lasting much longer.
- Stevvo 1y agoWould be nice if that were the reality, but it couldn't be further from it. US support for Israeli is stronger than it ever has been.
- sour-taste 1y agoAmong the political class, which is the only group that matters now that senators don't really answer to voters any more
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoIt definitely is not. The gulf in support between US politicians and the US public is wider than it ever has been. That's not sustainable in the long run (it is probably a notable factor already in the loss of the Dems' presidential candidate [among many others, of course])
- moogly 1y ago> Their actions in Gaza have fractured leftwing support, Chuck Schumer still supports killing and maiming toddlers though.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoExcellent case in point
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- FuckButtons 1y agoTrump doesn’t seem like the kind of person to learn from his, or anyone else's mistakes.
- PeterHolzwarth 1y agoMuch of humanity has learned, and so aggressively pursues anti-proliferation. America, the west, and many countries beyond the west, have been working to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades. Iran is detested in much of the middle east. If they get nukes, the rest of the middle east will feel compelled to quickly pursue their own nuclear weapons programs.
- mindslight 1y ago[flagged]
- ExaltedPunt 1y agoOne of the things he was good on was being generally more against wars than other US presidents. That unfortunately is no longer true.
- mindslight 1y agoTrump was never against war, as demonstrated by his calling Putin's aggression "genius". He was just generally critical of everything the US did, because fundamentally he hates our country. There are a boat load of earnest good-faith criticisms of our society and government. Trump excels at tapping into that frustration across the whole spectrum, which is how his cabinet is a circus of malcontents with no actual constructive ideas.
- ExaltedPunt 1y ago> Trump wasn't against war, as demonstrated by his calling Putin's aggression "genius" I think I know what statement you are referring to and it wasn't an endorsement of war. Recognising someone for doing something well even if it is amoral/immoral, isn't an endorsement of person or action. e.g. I don't like George Galloway or how he operates as a politician, nor do I like his politics, or his policies. I personally think that he is a scumbag. However he is a very effective politician and his strategies, tactics and his communication skills are second to none. He is very good at chewing out BBC presenters which is pure Schadenfreude. > He was just generally critical of anything the US did, because fundamentally he hates our country You are making a similar mistake. Being critical of your own country doesn't mean that you hate it. I live England. I am English. I love England. Do I hate a lot of things about my country currently? yes I do. Do I hate the country? no I don't (mostly).
- mindslight 1y agoPeople with morals don't sing the praises of other people for immorally executing well, rather they view it as an unfortunate failing. And "genius" is solidly in the territory of praise - contrast with your distancing of "very effective politician" and "don't like". That's just one touchpoint though. There's a larger but handwavier argument about how Trump's whole technique is to engage in negative-sum destructive aggression, causing pain to other parties so they capitulate and "make a deal". War is entirely on-brand for him. Really though we should probably be relieved that he turned his focus to a foreign enemy rather than spending most of his energy escalating attacks against the State of California. > Being critical of your own country doesn't mean that you hate it Read the sentence right after the one you quoted. I most certainly understand good faith criticism! I'm a libertarian - I actually care about many of the issues currently being burnt on the bonfire of credibility by Trump and the fake "libertarians" that actually only care about their own "rights".
- testrun 1y ago[flagged]
- netsharc 1y agoI swear, his signoff sentences are designed to give intelligent people brain aneurysms...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ggm 1y agoI wonder if the bunker buster was used. It has a somewhat indirect lineage to the ww2 grand slam designed by Barnes Wallis. Iran has massive earthquake risks. For reasons unassociated with nuclear bunkers they do a lot of research into (fibre, and other) strengthened cement construction. With obvious applications to their nuclear industry of course. Another unrelated point, a significant number of Iranian civil engineering graduates are women. A somewhat dichotomous economy, when you consider the theocratic restrictions on costume and behaviour.
- arandomusername 1y ago> I wonder if the bunker buster was used Most certainly was. It's underground (Fordow is ~60m?) so it's either that or nukes.
- tehjoker 1y agothe bunker buster, if used, will almost certainly be nuclear. estimated tonnage: 300 kt
- ggm 1y agoThis is nonsense.
- arandomusername 1y agoThe GBU-57 was most likely used, which is non nuclear
- p_ing 1y agoMOP is a conventional weapon, 30,000 lbs. Only the B-2 is rated to carry it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP
- xnx 1y agoGenuinely surprised that Israel couldn't push one out of their c-130s
- vaughands 1y agoSeriously, what is the benefit to the US here? I can't understand how this benefits the country at all.
- arandomusername 1y agoIt doesn't. It's all because Israel has extreme influence over US politicians.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mslansn 1y ago[flagged]
- Jtsummers 1y agoIt benefits the MIC, this is unlikely to be the end of this conflict.
- alephnerd 1y agoWe don't need a second North Korea. Nor do we want to normalize every country starting a nuclear program. Air strikes do not constitute boots on the ground, and the rules based norms around "you break it, you own it" ended with the last flight from Kabul. Most likely, we will conduct bombing raids, but take no part in nation building. Ironically, South Korea wanted to do this to North Korea in 2003 (edit: 1993-94), but the Bush (edit: Clinton) administration pushed back because they were concentrating on Iraq and Afghanistan (edit: Yugoslavia). Edit 1: Nuclear weapons ALONE do not act as a deterrent anymore. Most nuclear countries have second/third strike capabilities and nuclear triad capabilities. This is something that Iran has been working on for decades with a fairly robust ballistics and cruise missile program, and attempts at building a domestic nuclear submarine program. More critically, just about every regional power in the Middle East has been investing in similar capabilities in case an Iran breakout happens. Going from 1 additonal country with nuclear weapons to 3-4 leads to a cascading domino effect (a nuclear Iran means a nuclear Saudi means a nuclear Turkiye means a nuclear Egypt...) Edit 2: For the downvoters - a country who's leadership explicitly chants "مرگ بر آمریکا" (Death to America) will unsurprisingly be viewed as a threat. Even our large rivals China or Russia do not normalize that kind of rhetoric.
- testrun 1y agoAccording to Trump Fordow is gone.(https://x.com/Osint613/status/1936577812866945296 https://x.com/Osint613/status/1936577812866945296)
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- albiinics 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- pelagicAustral 1y agoI fell for the "two more weeks" meme...
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y agoNgl.. so did I.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Kye 1y agoThey didn't finish manufacturing consent yet. Novice mistake.
- cempaka 1y agoEither they believe it is no longer necessary, or they are facing some other set of constraints that is making it less feasible.
- MangoToupe 1y agoI've got to imagine the israel lobby is putting an enormous amount of pressure on DC to attack.
- yongjik 1y agoIt's Trump. He could bomb LA and 30% of Americans will cheer for it. I'm not sure consent matters. Hopefully the ensuing economic meltdown will sour enough Americans before too many people are killed, but who knows.
- ExaltedPunt 1y agoA large portion of Trump's base are very unhappy about bombing Iran and are very critical of any comments that are pro-war in general. I see it in a lot of comments sections and social media message to the effect of "I voted for Trump, and I didn't vote for this (war in Iran)". Generally, Any prominent pro-Israel republican if they post anything pro-war will have hundreds of negative replies. It is incredibly depressing to see people constantly falling into the trap that their political opposition are dumb / brainwashed.
- Timon3 1y agoLet's wait and see if they're still unhappy about the bombing in one week. This is a pattern I've seen time and time again with his base, e.g. with January 6th - they start off unhappy & surprised until their media has started sharing theories and viewpoints that slowly move them towards accepting and supporting whatever happened. I'd love to be wrong here, but I don't think I am.
- amazingamazing 1y ago[deleted - decided to stop asking questions]
- jghn 1y agoI mean, we could have not torn up the JPCOA for starters
- awongh 1y agoThey are manufacturing consent by saying Iran was days away from having nuclear weapons.
- hackyhacky 1y agoThey have been saying that (at least) since 1995.
- archsurface 1y agoWell, it takes about 20 years. Throw in a virus, assassinations, inspections, ... sounds about right.
- YZF 1y agoIsrael has been talking about the threat for some time and Iran over time has broadened its nuclear program and has enriched more and more Uranium to higher and higher levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Secret_expansion_and_weaponization_efforts_(1990s%E2%80%932002) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Secret... Why does Iran need all this enriched Uranium? Why is it investing so much in this? Why does it invest so much in its ballistic missile program? Would Israel be a threat to Iran if Iran didn't continuously declare it wants to wipe Israel off the map and take all these actions to follow up on that? Israel is tiny. It can't afford the risk of a regime that openly declares it wants to wipe it off the map and has acted towards that goal to get nuclear missiles.
- awongh 1y ago
- testrun 1y agoAccording to NYT the US is now at war with Iran: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/21/world/iran-israel-trump https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/21/world/iran-israel-tr...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- aaron695 1y agoThe bunker busters will not have worked on Fordow. (It will be the first time a GBU-57A/B has been used in war, which is interesting) They needed troops on the ground. Israel was going to do this. It's possible they have just collapsed the entrances. Trumps comments - https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump You have a loop, @Osint613 reposted Trump as "Fordow is gone" which Trump reposted. Neither of them have any idea. (Natanz, Isfahan were already hit and damaged by Israel, the US didn't bother to bunker bust them, it was Tomahawks from subs ) 3D model of Fordow - https://x.com/TheIntelLab/status/1398716540485308417 https://x.com/TheIntelLab/status/1398716540485308417 You need a tactical nuke to destroy Fordow, but the USA considers tactical the same as strategic, so it would be very unlikely. Russia could, since they put tactical in a different category.
- lunar-whitey 1y agoExpert opinions seem to differ on this. We will know once enough satellite and signal intelligence data has been analyzed for US leadership to ascertain whether further strikes may be required.
- aaron695 1y ago[dead]
- Havoc 1y agoSaw reports that natanz did get 2x too
- tourist2d 1y ago[dead]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mupuff1234 1y ago[flagged]
- skulbuny 1y agoThat world is the world we have always lived in, unless you have evidence otherwise?
- goatlover 1y agoSince when has a conflict in the Middle East been the end of the story?
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y agoWe were heading into that world until Trump fucked the deal. https://www.statista.com/chart/23528/irans-stockpile-of--low-enriched-uranium/ https://www.statista.com/chart/23528/irans-stockpile-of--low...
- awongh 1y agoI guess this is a half truth- that people were still not happy with Iran- who they were still funding and also continuing to develop non-nuclear ballistic missiles?
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y agoIran was following their obligations. Trump pulled out unilaterally.
- awongh 1y agoBut that makes it sound as if Iran was just peacefully chilling out. Which is technically true, but it doesn't actually reflect reality.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y agoBreaking promises with them means we give up the ability to work with them diplomatically on other goals. "They haven't done everything we'd like them to do" isn't a valid response to someone fulfilling the terms of an agreement you've made with them. Trump chose to break promises. Now we are seeing the outcome of the resulting breakdown of diplomatic relations.
- tptacek 1y agoI think Netanyahu belongs in prison, and Trump, the less said the better, but: couldn't have happened to a nicer unauthorized weapons-grade uranium enrichment facility dug into the side of a mountain hours outside of population centers. If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading up on the GBU-57 "bunker buster" bomb, because it is some Merrie Melodies Acme brand munitions. It's deliberately as heavy as they can make a bomb, not with explosives but just with mass. They should have shaped it like a giant piano.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y agoIt's a shame we got rid of the deal that brought their domestic uranium production to a halt [0]. Trump fucked this all up so badly. [0] https://www.statista.com/chart/23528/irans-stockpile-of--low-enriched-uranium/ https://www.statista.com/chart/23528/irans-stockpile-of--low...
- tptacek 1y agoYes.
- YZF 1y agoThe original deal didn't address the core issues. It was just a delay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac... The relief of sanctions enabled Iran to fund their other activities in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. It also enable the regime to invest in other weapons programs including weapons Iran has been supplying to Russia and those it and its proxies are launching against Israel. I'm not sure Trump withdrawal from that deal was the best idea but the deal wasn't great either.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoThe deal did address – quite precisely and successfully – the core issue. It didn't address some other side issues. "The thing that prevented them from achieving a nuclear weapon didn't also prevent them from funding x y z other far less problematic things that can be far more easily handled through conventional diplomacy and military action" Seriously?
- andrewinardeer 1y ago[flagged]
- andrepd 1y ago[flagged]
- jm4 1y agoAdmittedly, I was one of the people who wasn’t impressed with the deal Obama made in 2016. I didn’t like that it allowed Iran to keep enriching uranium or that we paid them. In recent years, that deal has been looking better every day. We are undoubtedly worse off today than we would be had Trump left the deal in place. This is a bad situation.
- YZF 1y agoIt was just not a good deal. It was more like kicking the can down the road and funding the regime. That's not good for Iranians and not good for anyone else.
- jm4 1y agoIt wasn’t a good deal. It was also probably the best deal that could have been achieved at any point in the past 20 years. More importantly, it would have kept things on an even keel and kept us talking to each other for as long as we both honored the deal. It was an opportunity to see if we could build a little bit of trust and make another deal later. Yes, it kicked the can down the road. It also represented a willingness on the part of both countries to try to avoid a conflict even though we both had reasons to want one. It’s possible it would have been a complete failure. We will never know. What we do know for sure is that we have had fewer options for dealing with the situation since we pulled out of the deal and now we are at war. Our country’s handling of Iran has been nothing short of a spectacular blunder. Two administrations have tried to negotiate out of the hole Trump got us into when he tore up the deal. The buffoon actually thought he would cancel the deal and make a better one. Now, after 20+ years of criticizing the Iraq war and campaigning three times on not starting new wars, he is the trigger man getting us into a new one when we are least prepared for it.
- YZF 1y ago
- SkyeCA 1y agoAs is tradition: Israel says jump, the US responds "How high?"
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y agoSuppose we should congratulate Bibi on his ascendancy to the US presidency.
- cyanydeez 1y agoIf it were legal, Russia probably would surpass Israel in political influence...legally.
- foogazi 1y agoRussia’s main drone supplier is about to be knocked offline
- e40 1y agoAccording to a Ukrainian friend Russia is now producing them themselves. They got the design plans from Iran.
- sealeck 1y agoThey've got a bunch of other facilities dotted around the place: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/16/ukraine-war-briefing-russian-drone-factory-attacked-1000km-away-in-tatarstan https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/16/ukraine-war-br...
- CapricornNoble 1y agoRussia's drones are primarily domestic production, not imported. The original Shaheds and their design were imported, but now the Russians are on the Geran-3 version and are cranking them out at the cyclic rate. Ukrainian sources still insist on calling them "Shaheds": https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/06/4/7515633/ https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/06/4/7515633/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/29/russia-iran-drone-cooperation-industry/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/29/russia-iran-...
- amazingamazing 1y ago[flagged]
- 34679 1y agoYes, absolutely. Iran has never started a war with anyone.
- amazingamazing 1y ago[deleted - decided to stop asking questions]
- kevingadd 1y agoThey wouldn't be the only country that made nuclear weapons. Or are you proposing that every country that's ever manufactured nukes be bombed into dust? There are a lot of them.
- cempaka 1y agoIsrael did that, are you okay with it?
- amazingamazing 1y agoI have no opinion.
- Kye 1y agoYour questions in here give the impression you do, and that your opinion is in favor of some kind of intervention. Military interventions have all gone poorly for us, while using diplomacy has worked over and over. Results should matter here and results say bombing is the wrong choice.
- amazingamazing 1y ago[deleted - decided to stop asking questions]
- dj_gitmo 1y agoIt’s horrible that the president can start a war without even asking congress.
- sssilver 1y agoMy impression was that this wasn’t how the US worked?
- colechristensen 1y agoIt wasn't supposed to be how it worked but our legislature is basically dysfunctional and either vaguely gave away or just won't protect its own power.
- epgui 1y agoYou’re right; it’s how the US malfunctions.
- handfuloflight 1y agoCongress does not have a spine.
- gxs 1y agoThis administration has been great at finding bugs in the code where the devs refuse to do shit That said this particular bug for starting wars without congress has been exploited for decades with no patches in site
- disqard 1y ago...and don't forget Gödel's Loophole (from Wikipedia): > Gödel's Loophole is a supposed "inner contradiction" in the Constitution of the United States which Austrian-American logician, mathematician, and analytic philosopher Kurt Gödel postulated in 1947. The loophole would permit America's republican structure to be legally turned into a dictatorship.
- PopePompus 1y agoCongress has been happily shedding its powers for decades. They don't want to be held responsible if a war turns out badly, so they haven't declared a war since 1945, I believe.
- mynameishere 1y ago[dead]
- Freedom2 1y ago[flagged]
- alephnerd 1y agoAsking HN for political analysis is like asking Politico for an in depth analysis on ML capabilities. There are a handful of users on HN who have domain experience or knowledge in policymaking due to professional adjacencies (IP Law, High Finance, Space/Defense Tech VC, etc) but get drowned out.
- Freedom2 1y agoI agree completely. Try to mention that on this site though and you get replies such as "we're not the same as other social media sites!", or some variant of the community here being the smartest in the room. At tech? Maybe. At everything else? Not so much.
- tehjoker 1y agothe kind of domain expertise you describe results in a different kind of imperialist psychosis. you should look to analysis coming from communists, Brazil, China, Iran, Palestine, Yemen, etc. These groups have a much more clear-eyed view of US policy.
- kif 1y agoI think it’s fair to say you need another kind of domain experience to explain Trump.
- hagbard_c 1y agoHe did order the commander of the IRGC to be taken out during his last term while simultaneously pushing the Abraham accords with several Sunni nations. The "peace through strength" concept is only believable when it is clear that strength will be used - call it Chekhov's gun of international relations.
- lunarboy 1y agoAlways amazes me how right leaning this site's populace seems to be
- Tika2234 1y ago[flagged]
- markus_zhang 1y agoOK what was done was done. What should we expect the political fallout in Iran?
- sfifs 1y agoI would worry about the fallout to the rest of us - Persian Gulf closed to shipping,maybe oil fields attacked, Oil at 300, Recession.
- nirav72 1y agoIran doesn’t quite have the capability to shutdown the shipping lanes in the PG. At least not in any way thats sustainable for a long period. A few days at best. A USN CG would put a stop to it in a hurry.
- awnird 1y agoDidn't you guys say the same thing about the Houthis? How do you still fall for this?
- nirav72 1y agoThe Houthi threat was in and around the red sea. Iran’s naval reach is limited to with whatever it is they call a “Navy” in the Gulf of Oman. Almost on other side of the Arabian peninsula. Also the Houthis got pummeled once the U.S showed up. The U.S didn’t even continue a sustained campaign to wipe them out. Something it is more than capable of doing with just a single carrier group. That’s not even counting the Saudis getting involved.
- throwaway_dang 1y agoBecause they're dumb and caught up in the propaganda. They think war is a video game and it's normal for a country to just bomb a country.
- sfifs 1y agoLet's not confuse capability with intention and consequences Straits of Hormuz is barely 40km wide and the Persian gulf is very shallow. Blocking it very feasible for nations bordering it who are willing to take the consequences. We don't know if they are and if so, unblocking it also has consequences in terms of requiring committing to prolonges military occupation. Ultimately, it appears the military industrial complex has won by replacing defense $$ in Afghanistan & Ukraine with yet another conflict.
- drecho 1y agoSome in the U.S. want peace. I guess no one else gives a shit and is just going to jettison us into a war for millennia.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- avoutos 1y agoPreventing Iran from having a nuke is IMO a good way of preserving peace. The allies tried appeasment and most historians agree that approach was one of the main causes of WWII.
- CamperBob2 1y agoI must've missed the part where Iran invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland.
- kelnos 1y agoI think GP's point was that it's better to act now, before Iran does the equivalent of invading Czechoslovakia or Poland.
- siltcakes 1y agoIsrael has been doing that for almost 80 years and they have nuclear weapons.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- int_19h 1y agoWhat would be the equivalent of Czechoslovakia and Poland and this scenario?
- jjk166 1y agoAh yes, like when we prevented Germany from ever being a problem again with the Treaty of Versailles.
- waltercool 1y ago[dead]
- cmurf 1y agohttps://bsky.app/profile/brma64.bsky.social/post/3ls5ntn5bns26 https://bsky.app/profile/brma64.bsky.social/post/3ls5ntn5bns... It could be worse. But this is still bad, may be illegal, and isn't over yet. We don't actually know what they hit, if those sites were empty, and what's happened to ~1/2 ton of highly-enriched uranium or the regime's ability to produce more.
- reassess_blind 1y agoIllegal? I don’t think that factors into any decision made here.
- cmurf 1y agoIllegal war started by a man constitutionally ineligible to be president. The only reason why he ran for office was to keep himself out of prison. John Adams said the Constitution is intended for a moral (virtuous) people. Meaning, it isn't self executing. You need people willing to commit to its guidance. And yet just enough of the people gave consent to be governed to a man who sent a mob to assassinate the vice-president of the U.S. when that VPOTUS, Mike Pence, refused Trump's order to overturn an election that Trump had lost. How can corruption of this magnitude be described as virtuous?
- PeterHolzwarth 1y agoVery definitely is not illegal in American law.
- msgodel 1y agoYeah there was no good reason for that. The main thing I liked about Trump is that he didn't start any wars his first term, if he gets us into a war I'm going to be fucking mad.
- cmilton 1y agoI know he likes to insinuate that, but it’s simply not true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike While you are correct it wasn’t a war, but neither is this technically.
- foogazi 1y agoThey have to believe it to have a reason to like Trump
- b0sk 1y agoIt is fascinating. He lies so much, keeps repeating those lies and somehow people start believing those lies.
- Nathanba 1y agowhich was widely believed to be a mere gesture to appease warhawks and that's why they only hit a few empty landing strips
- CamperBob2 1y ago11/29/11: "In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran." 1/17/12: "@BarackObama will attack Iran in order to get re-elected." 9/16/13: "I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order save face!" 11/10/13: "Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly - not skilled!" "If Kamala wins, only death and destruction await because she is the candidate of endless wars. I am the candidate of peace. I am peace." - Presidential debate, 2024 If you voted for Trump, you voted precisely for this. Every accusation from him is either a confession in disguise or an unfulfilled wish.
- MarkMarine 1y agoThis is astonishing. Our intelligence concluded Iran wasn’t moving towards a nuke and we hit them anyway, using peace negotiations as a ruse. No authorization from the representatives of the people who actually fight in the war, no thought of what this will do. If the comparison with how we treat hostile forces with nuclear weapons wasn’t more stark. N. Korea is basically left alone, their leader praised. Libya gives up nukes and then the state falls in on itself. This is proving to any state that nuclear arms are really the only protection. The world is less safe, and the next generation of young men like me (20 years ago) are about to be thrown into the meat grinder, sent by a ruling class that doesn’t even answer to the people anymore. We’ve really lost our way.
- EnPissant 1y agoIf not to build a nuke, why have a secret uranium enrichment facility built over 250 ft under a mountain?
- MarkMarine 1y agoCredible deterrent against stuff like this?
- EnPissant 1y ago> Our intelligence concluded Iran wasn’t moving towards a nuke > Credible deterrent against stuff like this? You mean the credible deterrent is moving towards a nuke?
- MarkMarine 1y agoThat is the point of what I was saying, yes. Look I dgaf about what Iran was doing, there is no wool over my eyes about what that state is capable of. I saw the IEDs with copper cones used to kill and maim my friends, they almost certainly came from Iran. What I care about is: congress declares war, not the executive. The people should decide, and we just stepped 10 steps closer to the monarchy we tried to depose 250 years ago.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- k310 1y ago[flagged]
- hnthrowaway0315 1y agoWell one better goes for the bomb if one decided to go above 60% (because whatelse do you plan?). Apparently using it as a bargain doesn't work out as expected.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- k310 1y agoDeclaration of War vs. Authorization for Use of Military Force: How America Goes to War https://govfacts.org/explainer/declaration-of-war-vs-authorization-for-use-of-military-force-how-america-goes-to-war/ https://govfacts.org/explainer/declaration-of-war-vs-authori...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Koshkin 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- yyyk 1y agoJust about every intelligence agency and expert agrees on nearly all the data. The debate and the 'conflicting' reports are mainly a matter of definitions. The data is that Iran has some weapons research, and have/had about 400kg of 60% enriched Uranium (no civilian use), an higher amount of lower grade enriched Uranium, and a certain number of centrifuges for enrichment. The interpretation bit is regarding what's called 'weaponization' (aka taking all the materials and converting them to a bomg): A modern bomb would use >90% (preferably >95%) Uranium and an implosion mechanism and be light and small enough to put on a common ballistic missile. While getting to 90% would have been easy for them (at one time they 'accidentally' enriched to 88%), they haven't done it yet, and it isn't entirely clear how close they are on miniaturization. A hacky bomb could use a lower grade of Uranium (60% would barely do if they pooled all of it), be much heavier (it comes with the lower grade), possibly use a simpler gun-type mechanism, and would have to be delivered with some custom mechanism. So 'weapons grade' could mean '90% and above', or it could mean 'enriched to a level that has no use apart from building weapons'. 'Distance to a bomb' could mean 'distance from what can be easily delivered' or 'distance from any fissile explosive'.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- tguvot 1y agothey tested implosion devices back in 2003 https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-carried-implosion-tests-nuclear-165314529.html?guccounter=2 https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-carried-implosion-tests-nucl... for totally civilian purposes...
- cchance 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- financypants 1y ago[flagged]
- e40 1y agoThey use the template for everything. It’s an odd thing to get worked up about.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- denkmoon 1y agoThe irony being that Iran must get nukes now. It is readily apparent they cannot defend themselves conventionally. Nukes are the ultimate deterrence. This wouldn’t be happening if they had a credible, survivable nuclear deterrence. QED this forces Iran to acquire nukes.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- smashah 1y agoPrecisely, Trump could only do this terrorist attack because he knows for certain that Iran does not have nukes. Nukes are an abomination to the Islamic Rules of War - which is why there is/was a long standing fatwa against it.
- selimthegrim 1y agoI guess this fatwa doesn’t apply to Pak Army?
- heavyset_go 1y agoWhy would Sunni leaders adhere to another sect's fatwas?
- mensetmanusman 1y agoBombing a mountain spinning uranium around to find the right isotopes to make death spheres is an act of terrorism against uranium spinning around.
- smashah 1y agoVampires lack a reflection.
- arandomusername 1y agoIran will definitely continue pursuing uranium enrichment. IRIB claims that the enriched uranium stockpile was moved away from those locations - which makes sense, so they probably didn't lose their stockpile. They will build new enrichment sites, which means bombing again.
- sadaaqat 1y agoI can see many problems with his plan.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- fldskfjdslkfj 1y agoPrediction: Iran will fold somewhat quickly and history will remember this as good move.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- raincole 1y agoThey'll do some symbolic attacks against the US bases in ME. But yeah, I do think history will remember this as one of the few good things Trump does.
- hkpack 1y agoAlternative prediction: Destabilized Iran will make another migration crisis in Europe, will divide it politically because of the rise of anti immigrant far right, and finally set the scene for a full scale european war with russia, followed by other counties on both sides. US will be forced to join and millions of its citizen will die in WW3.
- ericmay 1y agoWhy would there be more migrants to Europe from Iran?
- hkpack 1y agoThe same reason there were millions of refugees from Syria or Libya or Ukraine or because of any other instability in the region. There is just no much other places for people to run when shit hits fan.
- ericmay 1y agoMaybe, but the EU has different policies and a different understanding of immigration now compared to say 2010-2023, right? Also those countries you mentioned are a bit closer to Europe compared to Iran. But I’m also not sure that the situations are comparable. In the case of Ukraine which is probably most similar to Iran from an economic standpoint, had many refugees who were temporarily fleeing Russian aggression but planned to return to Ukraine. Iran, especially if/when it’s out from under sanctions has a more robust economy and geopolitical forces going for it, versus Libya or Syria, in my view.
- tdeck 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Waterluvian 1y agoWhen I look at Russia invading Ukraine, and I see how Israel is behaving, and I listen to the American president talking about annexing my country, I can see why a country might believe it needs nuclear weapons. Whether this is good or bad is something people can discuss. But I think it’s fleetingly difficult for me to see any sort of righteous high ground these days.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bagels 1y agoWith Trump in office, everybody should be seeking them out, Canada included.
- Waterluvian 1y agoI'm not sure what wise national defense policy would be. But I can't argue with anyone who might reach that conclusion.
- mensetmanusman 1y agoIf they don’t understand math and risk, they should. The US nearly nuked itself multiple times during development and learning. It will happen when everyone else races to build them.
- Waterluvian 1y agoYes, I hear nukes are dangerous.
- hajile 1y agoThat was when the research wasn't stable. Any nuclear scientist today knows WAY more about the do's and don'ts of creating nukes than we did when muddling through the Manhattan project. Making basic uranium nukes is time consuming, but nothing too special. The hard part (by far) is making the missiles to launch those nukes and hit the target. That part is so hard that we've continually failed to replace the Minuteman III which was designed before we even landed on the moon.
- xnx 1y agoDid I miss the part where Congress declared war or is that passe?
- wmf 1y agoIt's not a war, it's a limited engagement or whatever.
- oceansky 1y agoEven Vietnam wasn't formally declared as a war. Last formal declaration was WWII.
- soraminazuki 1y agoAs I understand it, congress still authorized the use of force. Nowadays, the president effectively bypasses congress using the 2 decades old authorization for the use of force against the overly broad threat of "terror."
- goodluckchuck 1y agoA declaration of war is an invitation for the other side to attack. Rather than being a restraint against war, empowering Congress to declare war allows them to force a potentially unwilling president into war.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- lwansbrough 1y agoThere sure are a lot of people in here who are defaulting to "nuclear proliferation is okay" by thinking that not being involved somehow solves the problem. You are in a prisoner's dilemma. Choosing not to participate is still participating.
- clipsy 1y agoI agree, we should require Israel to surrender its nuclear weapons or subject them to the same consequences.
- lwansbrough 1y agoThey are a nuclear state. They have defacto special privileges. That's how it works. The US doesn't decide that.
- bagels 1y agoDiplomacy was working until the US unilaterally withdrew from the treaty in 2018. There are solutions other than war to nonproliferation.
- lwansbrough 1y agoSo we're blaming the US because Iran chose to pursue weapons-grade enrichment. Have you considered that Iran could simply choose not to do that, like every other paranuclear state? Ultimately the choice of whether or not Iran gets to build a nuclear bomb is not up to them, and they're finding that out now.
- bagels 1y agoI am blaming Trump. He did this. He withdrew from the treaty which led directly to this action today.
- lwansbrough 1y agoWhat happened between Trump withdrawing from the treaty and Fordo getting bombed? I feel like you're perhaps missing a few critical steps on the Iranian side.
- beefnugs 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- righthand 1y agoThis will surely reduce government spending.
- ocdtrekkie 1y agoI mean I don't think anyone is still taking that goal seriously.
- awakeasleep 1y agoIt was originally serious only in shutting down the aspects of government that are a hinderance to large enterprise, and that part is just as serious as it ever was.
- righthand 1y agoNot since after they immediately started rounding up immigrants and citizens alike and putting them in foreign and domestic private prisons without cause or due process. That alone makes anything DOGE does irrelevant twice over.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- le-mark 1y ago[flagged]
- standardUser 1y agoIt's almost impossible to imagine Netanyahu acting so emboldened under any previous US president. And it's hard to deny that Trump now looks extremely diminished on the world stage, between his leading from behind with Israel over both Gaza and Iran and his comprehensive failure to have any impact on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
- I-M-S 1y ago> It's almost impossible to imagine Netanyahu acting so emboldened under any previous US president Gaza happened under Biden's watch, and continued under Trump.
- protocolture 1y agoYeah but Netanyahu tried the same shit regarding Iran with the last few presidents, including the previous incarnation of Trump who had better advisers. This is the first time the lie has worked to this extent.
- booleandilemma 1y agoWorked in what way? Preventing Iran (the country whose motto seems to be "Death to America") from making a nuclear bomb?
- protocolture 1y agoNetanyahu has warned that Iran is minutes away from the bomb for the last 30 years. Trumps own intelligence community was telling us that Iran is incapable of producing a bomb just a week or so ago. Death to America is a great motto, but that's all it really is, they sadly lack the capability to follow through with it. With or without these latest strikes.
- IdontKnowRust 1y agoThis is definitely a bold movement, I pray for peace, And hoping US stops jumping in conflicts that are not theirs
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- nsingh2 1y agoThis absolutely is a conflict that the US has been involved in from near the start [1]. This a continuation of that, not something entirely new. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CsJPrHcaBs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CsJPrHcaBs
- PeterHolzwarth 1y agoThis is a conflict America and its allies have been fighting for decades: to ensure Iran does not get nuclear weapons. Much of the middle east considers Iran to be a very significant enemy. A nuclear armed Iran would lead to much of the rest of the middle east rapidly pursuing their own nuclear weapons programs.
- mandmandam 1y agoI get that you consider this important enough to write ~40 variations of this comment in this thread. But people might think it sounds a bit silly, when Iran have been 'months' to 'a year' away from nuclear weapons for thirty years [0]. Especially when the IAEA themselves say there is zero proof that Iran have made any effort to obtain nuclear weapons [1]. Do you have any evidence for this? Any at all?? ... If so, wouldn't it be smart to share it the next time you make these claims in defense of acts of war? 9 days ago, Israel assassinated Iran's lead nuclear negotiator, along with 9 scientists [2]. They didn't offer any evidence for doing this, just claimed it was necessary. If you have access to any genuine evidence, it would be great to see it. And if you don't - consider not presenting you claims as fact ~40 times in a single post. 0 - https://www.cnbctv18.com/world/for-3-decades-israeli-pm-netanyahu-has-claimed-iran-months-away-from-nuclear-weapons-19622919.htm https://www.cnbctv18.com/world/for-3-decades-israeli-pm-neta... 1 - https://truthout.org/articles/iaea-head-we-did-not-have-any-proof-of-iran-building-nuclear-weapon/ https://truthout.org/articles/iaea-head-we-did-not-have-any-... 2 - https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-kills-ali-shamkhani https://www.commondreams.org/news/israel-kills-ali-shamkhani
- arthurcolle 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- dkjaudyeqooe 1y agoThere are reasons why presidents have avoided attacking Iran. - massive instability in the ME. Just a few men with shoulder fired missiles can disrupt oil shipments from the biggest oil producers - the high chance of being sucked into a forever war. Iran can cause a lot of problems with limited resources and can rebuild. They have no reason to give up and the US might have to continue bombing indefinitely, or launch a ground invasion. - the increased chance of nuclear war in the ME. This action assumes that Iran has no backup facilities, or will never have, to continue building a bomb. Having already suffered the consequences, Iran has no reason not to seek a bomb.
- deadbabe 1y ago[flagged]
- csoups14 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- austin-cheney 1y agoWorse, is that this was done at the behest of Israel. Israel is America’s shittiest ally in the region where the relationship is exclusively one-sided. There are good reasons why, despite all the lies and bullshit from America politicians, America has not executed military actions at their behest before now.
- dkjaudyeqooe 1y agoThis is probably the worst thing about Trump, he's let Bibi lead him around like a dog on a leash. Any other president would be infuriated with Bibi's actions, because they would know he's cornering the US. But he knew Trump was a pushover.
- 1y ago
- kmnc 1y agoWar is a racket, move along we got bombs to sell. All I can hope is that somehow someway the Iranian people will be better off in the future. Well at least America has its enemy again, the immigrants as enemy wasn’t going over as smoothly as expected. Religion and culture wars are just so much easier.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- greenavocado 1y agoFascinating how this happened merely weeks after Iran-China railway link opened (Reported on May 25, 2025. Link below.). It directly threatens US hegemony by providing a faster and more secure land corridor for trade, particularly Iranian oil and gas exports to China and Chinese goods flowing into Iran and the broader Middle East. This bypasses critical maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca, where the US Navy traditionally exerts significant control, reducing reliance on these US-dominated sea routes. Furthermore, the railway facilitates sanctioned Iranian oil exports to China and enables increased Chinese investment in Iran, undermining the effectiveness of US economic sanctions as a primary tool of foreign policy. It accelerates Eurasian integration under China's Belt and Road Initiative, deepening economic and strategic ties across the continent and fostering the development of a US-independent economic bloc linking China, Iran, Turkey, Central Asia, and Russia. The railway physically connects two major US adversaries, China and Iran, enabling easier movement of goods, resources, and potentially military or logistical support, thereby strengthening an anti-Western coalition challenging US global dominance. In essence, the railway erodes US control over trade routes, weakens sanctions, empowers a rival Eurasian bloc centered on China, and solidifies an opposing strategic axis. https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2025/05/25/3320800/freight-route-gets-rolling-as-chinese-train-unloads-in-iran-s-dry-port https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2025/05/25/3320800/freigh...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- twelve40 1y agodoubt it's really game-changing. Rail is more expensive and the three other countries in the middle can be strong-armed and harassed into stalling or cutting this off.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y agoDepends, cutting off strait of hormuz could easily change that calculus a bit. Things can get unpredictable from here on now.
- senectus1 1y agosigh this is Iraq all over again. watch as the US is now dragged into 10-20 years of war in the middle east again.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- barbazoo 1y agoWhich stock do I buy
- FuckButtons 1y agoNot TSMC.
- yencabulator 1y agoVietnam -> Gulf War = 15 years Gulf War -> US invasion of Iraq = 12 years US invasion of Iraq -> USA, Iran & Israel = 22 years Looks like it's time for USA to feed a new generation of grunts into the PTSD grinder again.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- hackernoops 1y ago[flagged]
- beefnugs 1y agoDamn, but have they so blatantly cut vet benefits and support right before the need for massive recruits in the past? Why would anyone sign up for military service after dump has personally pissed in their faces?
- iw2rmb 1y agoThat’s the ideal situation to have vets and poor people in surviving mode. Now you just release act of great benefits for those who sign and you get them onboard in a blink of an eye. Same with the Russian mil conscripts in Ukraine. Same with the crusade in mid ages.
- duxup 1y agoIs there an end to this? The US actually ends Iran's nuclear program, they quit trying and obey ... because we bombed them? Most of the recent middle east history doesn't seem to ever end as much as just go through a continuous cycle of violence creating more of what the folks condoning violence claim they're preventing.
- reaperducer 1y agoJust yesterday I was wondering when the last time was that the Middle East had a period of peace. I know it hasn't been in my lifetime.
- greenavocado 1y agoIt was getting pretty quiet leading up to the moment Assad was deposed.
- jjk166 1y agoAssad was deposed more than a year after the start of the current Israel/Gaza flare up, which has included conflict in Lebanon and Yemen. He was also deposed nearly 14 years into the Syrian Civil War.
- jordanb 1y agoNot since the Ottomans picked the wrong side in WWI.
- vdupras 1y agoOne question I have on my mind is: what side will they pick in WWIII?
- pjc50 1y agoShortly before the assassination of Rabin?
- twelve40 1y ago
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mrs6969 1y agoSo russia can not attack a nuclear facility in ukraine, but us can in iran ? What am I missing ?
- bufferoverflow 1y ago[dead]
- jiggawatts 1y agoa) Russia plans to conquer Ukraine and use its resources. Nuclear power plants are very expensive and critical to industry. Russia wants to capture these for their own use, not blow them up and irradiate the countryside that they wish to be a part of their own country! b) Active reactors contain very "hot" decay products that are very bad for your health if atomised by an explosion and spread around. Chernobyl is the prototypical example of this. Enriched Uranium is less radioactive than natural Uranium, that's the point! Natural Uranium would "trigger itself" prematurely due to its constant background decay radiation.
- tgv 1y agoMy knowledge in these matters is limited, but natural uranium can't trigger itself, can it? At least, it can't produce the classical chain reaction, as there's not enough U235 to sustain it, I think.
- aaronmdjones 1y ago> but natural uranium can't trigger itself, can it? Right now? Not that we know of. Historically? Yes. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-two-billion-year-old-only-known-natural-nuclear-reactor https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-tw...
- tgv 1y ago2B years ago, the U235/U238 ratios were different. Isn't that (part of) the explanation?
- cedws 1y agoSo is that the end of Iran’s nuclear programme, or is there more to it?
- swagasaurus-rex 1y agoThis is just another square in my world war three bingo board. Sits pretty close to breaking the nuclear taboo square.
- PeterHolzwarth 1y agoA country doesn't acquire nukes to use them. They acquire them to freeze specific layers of conflict. Actually using them among peers invites annihilation.
- swagasaurus-rex 1y agoAnnihilation, that would make a good square on the bingo board
- mensetmanusman 1y agoStatistics says even if it’s true, unintended use probability sky rockets risking nuclear winter.
- PeterHolzwarth 1y agoIt turns out (and I didn't realize this until I looked back into it just a few years ago) that the 70s/80s concept of nuclear winter is discredited and believed not to be something that would arise from a global thermonuclear holocaust.
- amoss 1y agoOn the contrary, modern research shows that the effects would be more severe and long-lasting: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006jd008235 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006jd00...
- codedokode 1y agoI am a little confused. Is bombing a sovereign country under far-fetched excuse considered ok or not today?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- grugagag 1y agoFor the world I want to live in it is not. Seems surreal but maybe it’s not that world anymore, and I fear it will get worse.
- billfor 1y agoIt's OK.
- lwansbrough 1y agoWhat is far fetched about preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon?
- sealeck 1y agoLack of nuclear weapon.
- lwansbrough 1y agoYou can’t prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon if you wait until they have it. They were enriching uranium near weapons-grade levels. What more evidence do you need without seeing an actual assembled nuclear weapon?
- sealeck 1y agoI mean do you think the Iranian government is more incentivised to build a nuclear weapon before or after??
- 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- l33tbro 1y agoA superpower being beholden to Netanyahu's impulses beggars belief. Israel, their client state, acts out in aggression against its neighbour against US advice. The US bails them out and takes the fallout now. Astounding.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- giantg2 1y agoWell, CSOCs are likely to get busy this week.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- anonu 1y agoA consequential night for Israel: peace for many decades to come. I worry, however, that peace through bombing is not a permanent solution. Peace comes through diplomacy. Ideology does not die in the rubble.
- sealeck 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- isuckatcoding 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- OhioMan2943 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- PeterHolzwarth 1y agoAmerica, the west, much of the not-west, and even much of the middle east, have been working to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades. In large swaths of the middle east, Iran is considered a dangerous enemy. A nuclear armed Iran would quickly lead to nuclear proliferation throughout the middle east. This isn't some recent initiative thought up for the heck of it: it's been on ongoing focus for a very long time.
- deepsquirrelnet 1y agoIs “NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE” about to become the new “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- kjewsnow 1y ago[flagged]
- Forgeties79 1y agoWhat on earth
- blobbers 1y agoIs it safe to blow up a nuclear plant? Doesn't that cause bad things to spread?
- coliveira 1y agoYes, but who said that Trump cares about any consequences of his actions?
- blobbers 1y agoIt sounds like this stuff is underground sound so maybe it doesn't contaminate everything?
- dankobgd 1y agoAmericans only care about stealing oil and gas
- palmfacehn 1y agoIf you believe they are manufacturing a nuclear weapon, then it is less bad than the nuke detonating.
- jewzintheoven 1y ago[flagged]
- jewzintheoven 1y ago[flagged]
- typeofhuman 1y agoWeird how this is front page but a post for the wiki page of the Northrop B-2 Spirit gets flagged. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44341958 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44341958 Here's the interesting wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_B-2_Spirit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_B-2_Spirit
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- pvg 1y agoA discussion of a major world event makes a lot more sense than a discussion of something tangentially related to a major world event. People sensibly flag the tangential stuff as effective dupes - it wouldn't really make sense to have a front page discussion about the event as well as a front page discussion about a plane.
- typeofhuman 1y agoThe post about the stealth bomber doesn't have to be front page. I just disagree it should be flagged.
- hearsathought 1y agoImagine if Putin got Trump to bomb ukraine for him. Imagine if Xi got Trump to bomb Taiwan for him. There would be a crisis in this country as the media would be attacking trump for being a stooge to a foreign power. How is it possible that a foreign leader, Netanyahu ( who has lied in the past to get us to attack iraq ), can get Trump to bomb Iran and nobody, especially in the media, bats an eye. The media is focused on the bombing, but shouldn't the focus be on foreign control over much of the US government? After years of soul searching over the iraq fiasco and the lies can we still be in this position again?
- hackernoops 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jmyeet 1y agoI sympathize with people thinking Israel is wagging the dog but I don't think it's true. Israel exists in the way that it does and does what it does because we allow it to. It is a toolf our imperial interests, not the other way around. To argue otherwise absolves us of our responsibility and can often descend into antisemitism (which I oppose). We have described Israel as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" in a region we want to destabilize becuase it has resources that are important to us. Oh and this is uniparty too. Don't kid yourselves if you think things would be different if the Democrats were in power. It would not. There is universal agreement on US foreign policy across both parties. The events in Gaza began under a Democratic president who did absolutely nothing to rein Israel in where he could've ended it with a phone call. There is no opposition to what Israel is doing. Even now, Democratic leaders in Congress aren't complaining about what the president is doing and has done. They're complaining that they weren't consulted. And not to oppose it but to have the opportunity to express their support. And yes, the media is absolutely complicit in what's going on too.
- fuckyah 1y ago[dead]
- jmward01 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- yadaeno 1y agoIran is the aggressor here. Iran has been funding and arming multiple proxies to fire missles into Israel for the past 50 years
- goatlover 1y agoIsrael isn't the US, but I can understand being confused about that given the US seems to always do what's in Israel's best interest.
- kurtis_reed 1y agoThe comment was just saying that its parent was incorrect that Israel was the aggressor.
- bigolkevin 1y ago...in response to Israeli acts of terrorism and crimes against humanity...
- kurtis_reed 1y ago...in response to...
- mrkeen 1y agoTurns out you can't just put your country in the middle of other countries without the shit hitting the fan. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54116567 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54116567 Not that they keep to themselves either. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-occupation-50-years-of-dispossession/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/06/israel-o...
- wnevets 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- codedokode 1y agoHe promised to end a war but instead started another one.
- mensetmanusman 1y agoWe will know shortly whether bombing 700 spinning motors that we’re building death spheres is an act of war…
- jjk166 1y agoWell if someone did it to our enrichment plants, it would be an act of war.
- mensetmanusman 1y agoTo us it would, to them it is defensive, especially if we keep saying we financially support suicide bombers etc.
- neilv 1y agoIn that reporting stream, at 22:58, "White House releases photos of Trump in Situation Room"[1], I'm struck that we are in a timeline that is not only dark, but surreal. It sounds trite to say from a position of relative comfort and distance, but I can only hope that someday our better selves will find peace with each other, around the globe. But we won't be able to undo all the injustices and atrocities that we inflicted upon each other. We know these wrongs as we are doing them, and they will remain upon us. [1] https://i.imgur.com/sR8YhcY.png https://i.imgur.com/sR8YhcY.png
- fastball 1y agoWhat is surreal about Trump being in the Situation Room?
- neilv 1y agoAs photojournalism, the image is brilliant. Though not entirely candid, that subtext contributes.
- baobabKoodaa 1y agoYou didn't answer the question.
- neilv 1y agoI'm not going to bother, when already-triggered people are downvoting this thread so hard.
- DangitBobby 1y agoThe use of a crisis for a photo-op, for one. He's wearing a fucking MAGA hat!
- PeterHolzwarth 1y agoNothing odd about that. I'm thinking of photos of Obama and Hillary in the situation room, observing the strikes on Bin Laden in realtime.
- Ozzie_osman 1y agoI imagine every reasonably-sized country looking at this and thinking: "well, we'd be idiots not to have nuclear weapons by any means necessary." This will be one of the single-most proliferation-inducing events in history, maybe save Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
- I_am_tiberius 1y agoI wouldn’t be surprised if North Korea is now doubling its efforts and even offering Russia additional resources to help it acquire nuclear capabilities.
- shepherdjerred 1y agoDoesn't NK already have nukes?
- kelipso 1y agoMore means better deterrence I guess. Didn’t China decide to build a shitton more to match the US numbers recently?
- I_am_tiberius 1y agoYou're right. Didn't know!
- FergusArgyll 1y agoThis is the kind of high information commenters we have on HN when it comes to non CS related issues
- PeterHolzwarth 1y agoNorth Korea has nukes, which has seriously changed the calculus in the region. Worse is that they are a vassal state of China.
- energy123 1y ago
- Doggler 1y ago[flagged]
- batmaniam 1y agoHow the heck does a US president have military powers so powerful and broad? If congress can only declare war, it doesn't make sense to me that the president can put the entire country at risk of war by directly bombing another country. Like then at that point, congress has to approve right..? Because the damage is already done. It's a big slap on the face at the global stage, with no room for political face-saving. The damage being already done to both global reputation and national sovereignty. There's no going back. If another country bombed the US, and then their system of government was like, "oh well it isn't technically war cause it was just our single head honcho making his own decision. But good news, our second government entity officially declared not going to war with you, kthxbye srry lol", that logic isn't going to fly in the US. The US is gonna retaliate and consider it an act of war, because it was bombed by a foreign power... damage being already done. How the heck can Trump do this. I get it if the US got attacked, then it's useless to wait for congress to decide war-or-not-war... but this literally puts the US on a direct war path with Iran. the US literally just bombed another country unprovoked. And Trump said he hated war, which was his platform when running. He was gonna end the war in Ukraine because nobody wins and war is nasty. What is going on.. why is Congress so spineless too. They probably won't even do anything. This is the worst timeline ever.
- selivanovp 1y ago[flagged]
- wsatb 1y ago> And Trump said he hated war, which was his platform when running. What’s going on.. He’s a career con artist, that’s what’s going on.
- BLKNSLVR 1y agoIsrael declared war on Iran, and now the US has joined Israel's side in it. There is no other interpretation when bombs and missiles are sent 'in anger' to a sovereign nation, no matter which side is "bad". Hint: all sides are bad.
- erikerikson 1y ago
- ndgold 1y agoIs it true that all war = illegal ?
- econ 1y agoWe have all this technology but you can't get a decent overview of any conflict. There is liveuamap which seems to have data and certainly is better than any other website I know of but the ui is a horrific mess. I think it is important for the people of the world to get an idea how things are unfolding. It should be an animation of the exchanges both verbally and physically. Have a complete set of news sources for each action. The BBC is not something you can trust to report on anything. I can't even see a date with the article? Pictures of the situation room??? Trump's name written in gold??What a waste of my time. Games from the 90's provide better visualizations than anything online today.
- mrkeen 1y agoIt's not in governments' interests to allow their citizens information without taking the opportunity to spin it first.
- lerp-io 1y agomoral of the story: if you don’t make the nuke to wipe everyone out fast enough, you will eventually get bombed and no amount of diplomacy will save you from game theory.
- _heimdall 1y agoI do agree with the sentiment here, but "no amount of diplomacy" isn't really a description of Iran's government. The Iranian government has frequently reference a goal of destroying Israel, a sovereign nation, and referred to the US in very disparaging (and biblical) terms. That doesn't justify direct attack, but it also isn't diplomatic.
- azinman2 1y agoDisparaging? They literally chant death to America. Is that not also calling for its destruction?
- lunarboy 1y agoI'm sure the decades of CIA meddling in the Middle East and endless wars had no effect on raising generations of US hatred. To hit someone, then call them dangerous when they say "I hate you" is real hero stuff
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- inglor_cz 1y agoNeither of you are wrong. There are genuine reasons for hatred of the West in the Middle East, AND the Islamists are doing their best to whip up that hatred even more and weaponize it. That said, "organic" hatred towards the US is much more common in the Arab world than in Iran. Smarter people who live under totalitarian regimes tend to become distrustful of the message that the regime goons are relentlessly pushing, and if that message is "Death to America", the underground reaction will be "America must be cool if the idiots up there hate it so much". I saw the same with my own eyes in late-stage Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. Regime propaganda is one thing, its effect on the people another. It usually works much less than expected.
- TheAlchemist 1y agoAnd now what ? If the current regime stays in power, it's pretty much a guarantee that they will pursue nuclear weapons by all means available, in the future. If the US / Israel want to topple the regime... that worked really well in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afganistan.... Also, isn't it really illegal for a US president to authorize a strike like this without Congress ?
- ActorNightly 1y agoWhy are people surprised when Trump does things illegally?
- fastball 1y agoDid it surprise you when Obama did the same?
- doofusmcgoo 1y agoNope. Because he didn't do anything illegal. Thanks for calling, goodnight.
- jasonboyd 1y agoAre you sure? He certainly engaged in a lot of military operations in several countries without Congress's approval. He also ramped up drone strikes dramatically.
- kelnos 1y agoNot to justify what Obama did, but that all fell under the post-9/11 "War on Terror" AUMF.
- doofusmcgoo 1y agoNone of those required congressional oversight. The US hasn't officially declared war since WW2. That's largely due to every administration since then finding clever wording to get around it. Did Obama do unethical things? Probably, geopolitics is not a game of right/wrong. Did Obama do anything illegal, nope. Same with Trump. (Yes, in this context I'm both-sidesing, but not every context: Trump wants to imprison/deport/kill me and people I love, there's no comparision, and he's too dumb to be a nazi but is absolutely an evil dictator. Obama never put crosshairs on the heads of US citizens for not being straight white christians or not kissing his ass.)
- fastball 1y agoImpressively prescient on the part of the Top Gun sequel. This is basically the plot, just with more close calls and less "well that was kinda easy".
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jihadjihad 1y agoKinda easy when you can drop a GPS guided bus from 50k feet and have no fear of return fire
- 0xbadcafebee 1y agoCould be a good way to boost the economy amidst a trade war while simultaneously doubling-down on protectionism. On the one hand we usually profit from wars, on the other hand we lose trading partners when we do our usual human rights violations shtick. I predict this is a ploy to try to get us into a war, so Trump can have his third term, rejecting calls to step down "because we're at war". It's a little early, but our kids are already used to being in 20-year-long pointless wars in the Middle East.
- PeterHolzwarth 1y agoOn the contrary, nobody wants a nuclear armed Iran. It's been an open not-even-secret for decades that America is very active, on many fronts, in trying to delay or remove Iran's growing capability to create nuclear weapons.
- lunarboy 1y agoThat Trump's own appointed Head of Intelligence denied? The least republicans can do is align their own fucking story.
- PeterHolzwarth 1y agoThat would help, but it doesn't change the fact that America and the broader west has been working hard for decades to counter Iran's nuclear weapons program.
- OfficeChad 1y ago[dead]
- OhioMan2943 1y agoBy now, most people trust a nuclear armed stable iran over an erratic, war hungry nuclear armed israel
- mandmandam 1y ago> we usually profit from wars That's a huge lie, if 'we' is to be read as 'Americans' and not 'the 1%'. 78% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck [0]. 'We' - taxpayers - 'spent' trillions and trillions of dollars on war in the middle east. What was the return on investment? We could have housed every American, eliminated student debt, gone 100% clean energy, and ended world hunger; with change left over. 0 - https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/living-paycheck-to-paycheck-statistics-2024/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/living-paycheck-to-pa...
- fastball 1y agoWhat is to stop Iran from putting their next enrichment facility deep underground in the middle of Tehran? Seems even Israel might be more hesitant to target it at that point.
- nicce 1y agoLikely the reason to bomb Iran now in the first hand was internal politics of Israel. Controlling party was losing votes. Now, few bombs and problem solved.
- keelsandnig 1y ago[dead]
- apu 1y agoIncredible to see the bloodlust and warmongering here, cloaked in the language of technical interest.
- einpoklum 1y ago[flagged]
- GuardianCaveman 1y agoIncredible to see the people who have zero contact with extremist Muslims or familiarity with what the Quran and hadiths actually say or understand Iran in any way talking about how Iran is the victim or burying their heads in the sand with their coexist bumper stickers acting like we can just be nice and everyone will get along.
- viccis 1y ago>extremist Muslims or familiarity with what the Quran and hadiths You can easily find stuff in the Bible and the Torah or Talmud that would shock you. And Israel even acts on the latter. But conveniently it's just the Muslim world, one beset with colonial extraction for centuries, that you care about. Not the people in the US who supported wars killings hundreds of thousands over the last few decades for religious reasons. Hmm.
- EvgeniyZh 1y ago> the Muslim world, one beset with colonial extraction for centuries Surely you mean on the side of extractors? The Ottoman Empire practiced mass movement of people (sürgün), basically settler colonialism; earlier Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates are among the largest empires in history, and their population was mass converted to Islam.
- viccis 1y agoThe Ottoman Empire did indeed subject a large portion of the Muslim world to colonial extraction.
- BartjeD 1y agoBombing another country is literally a declaration of war. With explosions. Isn't an act of congress required for this, in the US?
- ExoticPearTree 1y ago> Isn't an act of congress required for this, in the US? Yes, but when only when you really need to go to a full wartime economy. Otherwise is just business as usual.
- riffraff 1y agoCountries stopped doing declarations of war decades ago, cause you know, war is not something _we_ do, it's something bad people do. _We_ do special operations, interventions, liberations, preventive strikes, weapon destructions.
- jiggawatts 1y agoAlso the enemy is always a guerrilla, terrorist, or a rebel and works for a regime, dictator, or king.
- karmakurtisaani 1y agoAnd then you make movies on how you were the good guys, and that's how we all will remember it.
- whilenot-dev 1y agoI'm all for a collective change there, so every foreign movie just ends in the same deus ex machina moment: every protagonist gets bombed out of existence. Might get repetitive after a while, but I guess that's the idea.
- xdennis 1y agoPart of the reason why countries stopped declaring war is because the laws of war make it harder to do so, so it's easier to have a war without one. Also, declaring war on certain groups would entitle them to being treated as war combatants, and people don't want to extend that privilege to terrorists (al Qaeda, ISIS, etc)
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- IceHegel 1y agoI voted for Trump. I'd support his impeachment now. He has betrayed his core by letting Israel suck our country into another Middle Eastern conflict, after promising to do the opposite.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- SG- 1y agovoting a bozo in gets you bozo outcomes.
- lunarboy 1y ago[flagged]
- PeterHolzwarth 1y agoI understand what you mean, but we've been in this conflict for decades already. America and loads of other countries have been working to stop Iran from achieving nuclear weapons. Remember that in much of the middle east, Iran is considered an enemy. A nuclear armed Iran would result in the rest of the middle east rapidly pursuing nukes by way of defense against Iran - a country most of the middle east views as a combatant and an enemy. I won't comment or discuss who you voted for - that isn't germane here. What is important is that America has been working for decades - often quite blatantly, sometimes with the thinnest veneer of deniability - to stop Iran from getting nukes. We're now just saying the quiet part out loud.
- einpoklum 1y ago> America and loads of other countries have been working to stop Iran from achieving nuclear weapons. 1. America is a continent. You probably mean the USA. 2. What the US has been working to stop Iran from is being independent of its near-control - which it had gained with the 1953 CIA-fomented coup d'etat against the Mossadegh government, and lost again in 1979 when the Islamist-headed faction of the rebellion gained power. While it's true that the US would not like Iran to have nuclear weapons, that has served more as an excuse to try and suppress it rather than actual motivation.
- cakealert 1y agoIran never had the deterrent North Korea had. And by being a theocracy they heavily skewed any threat calculus against themselves. What they were doing, inching towards nukes, was a horrible move. In their position, you either sprint covertly and not play at all. I suspect that after their nuclear program was discovered and set back they fell victim to the sunk cost fallacy and convinced themselves they could repurpose it as leverage. But they are a theocratic regime and their messaging (whether genuine or not) made that a non-viable option in reality. This is probably what happens when your government isn't very competent and you don't have mathematicians doing game theoretic simulations for you? Theocracy with nukes screams nuke them first if you can't destroy their capability by other means. What happened today likely saved millions of Iranian lives.
- alkyon 1y agoIf anything, the lack of competence is on the other side. Was enriched uranium destroyed? I doubt it. Have they even "obliterated" Fordow site buried 90 m deep inside the mountain? I have serious doubts. Iran's nuclear program was set back some months if anything.
- nmca 1y agoHow do you purport to know this?
- coffeebeqn 1y agoThe layout of Fordow from what we’ve seen is not a single site. Depending on how many runs they did maybe it is all but destroyed or maybe it’s 1/3 destroyed. I’m sure Israel’s intelligence on it is pretty accurate (probably not public at this point)
- hajile 1y agoFordow is widely reported to be significantly deeper than GBU-57 can penetrate (which is just 60 meters). The only way they penetrate is landing two of them in the exact same hole (think Robin Hood splitting an arrow with another arrow). Off by just a little and it winds up with it's own separate 60m hole. CEP with GPS for our most accurate glide bombs is 5 meters. But GPS jamming is cheap and easy and the best precision we get in that case is 30 meters CEP. GPU-57 gets its power from gravity. Reaching that 60 meter maximum penetration requires dropping the bomb from maximum elevation, but without GPS, that further increases the CEP. With just 6 bombs, it seems unlikely that they could reliably penetrate. Actual penetration would likely require nuclear penetrators, but those also break the nuclear prohibition and open Pandora's box in places like Ukraine. A great example of the problem is Yemen. We tried to get the Houthi to stop by dropping bunker busters on their tunnel systems and completely failed. We were forced to reach a ceasefire agreement (one that likely went up in smoke last night).
- gorgoiler 1y agoAs I understand it, conventional explosives derive their destructive force from using chemical energy to vaporize material so quickly that it explodes forming a destructive shockwave. With a kinetic energy impacted like the MOP bunker buster, does the material vaporize ahead of the munitions? Is the destructive shockwave the munition casing itself, or perhaps the vaporized breccia being pushed in front of it? In some ways I imagine it like a nail being driven into the ground but my gut feeling is that, at such high impact energies, something more complicated is going on. For example, with small calibre ballistics you can have many kinds of terminal action: from square edged paper cutting rounds used to make clean holes in targets, to subsonic rounds transferring energy into a target, all the way up to supersonic rounds which drive a shock cone through a “soft” target to cause trauma.
- crossroadsguy 1y agoAs someone who absolutely hates American bullying of a hegemony. This is one case where I believe people of Iran might come out beneficial of it. In the long term? I am not so sure. But will that happen? I doubt it. A country like America likes authoritarian regimes that like to listen to America. So Iranian things in the best interest of America would be the same theocracy but docile to America at least in the near future (or worse a full fledged military dictatorship which they anyway installed once). However I just hope/dream (and it's too much of a hope) for the sake of Iranian people - it ends up getting a democracy after all (maybe). However there is one thing clear - there is no rule based foreign relations, business, diplomacy anymore in this post truth world of ours. It's plain simple - you look after your own hind lest you find someone is at the door wanting to take it; might be an ally just as well. A side note: I can't thank four of my country's ex PMs [0] enough that they ensured we had nukes inspite of stringent sanctions from other nations which ironically, among them, almost all already had nukes :D The point is - we wish there were no nukes in our heating beautiful world; but tough luck, so you better get your own and get it soon. [0] esp. Indira Ghandhi; also, probably the only head of sate that actually succeeded in "selling freedom" thing. Something America specialises in and uses as a premise to routinely reduce various parts of the world to rubble. A positive outcome of such endeavours - its defence industry getting push from it and of course it goes about trying to re-build it, giving push to other of its industries, half or quarter way and then finds other sundry places to subject to this routine.
- koevet 1y agoBut wasn't Iran already docile to America? Sure, it wasn't a crystal clear ally like Saudi or the Gulf states, but behind the anti-Zionist propaganda and "evil US" blabbering, there were decades of backchannel negotiations, regional pragmatism, and even moments of cooperation — especially when mutual interests aligned, like in post-Taliban Afghanistan or the fight against ISIS.
- PeterHolzwarth 1y agoAmerica and the broader west (and even much of the not-west) has been working to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions for decades. A nuclear armed Iran means much the middle east, which considers Iran a dire enemy, would feel compelled to immediately launch their own nuclear weapons programs.
- LAC-Tech 1y agoI can't help but conclude the primary rogue state in region is not Iran - it's Israel: - Did not sign the non-proliferation treaty - Does not allow IAEA inspectors into their country - Nuclear weapons program widely believed to have started from material stolen from the US - Prime Minister wanted by the ICC for war crimes. Since 2023, they have: - Invaded and occupied parts of Syria and Lebanon - Bombed Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen - Killed nearly 70,000 people in Gaza The Islamic Republic of Iran appears sane, rational, and peaceful by comparison. Quite an achievement!
- curiousgal 1y agoI am absolutely flabbergasted that very few are pointing this out. People seem to rally against Iran because of some hypothetical scenario where it could become...exactly like Israel.
- latentcall 1y agoMany people are blind to what Israel and USA does, or are always making excuses for them and they buy the state propaganda.
- vbezhenar 1y agoUS will sell their mother to a devil if that makes good profit. Who cares about Gaza people?
- seydor 1y agoI don't think it's going to end here. US wants to control Iran , to starve China of its oil. US+Israel already have set up rich middle east countries as bulwarks. The whole middle east is setting up the stage for future proxy wars between US & china/russia
- dgb23 1y agoBut none of that is necessary. Why is the US suddenly so hostile towards China?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- seydor 1y agoI think because China has very high growth momentum that surpasses american living standards soon, and not long before it will surpass american security standards too. China purchasing power is probably more comfortable than most west countries, with extensive housing and high speed rail and electric cars etc. When a country becomes rich, inevitably other countries ask for their help. That's why china's growth must be curbed, fast.
- dudefeliciano 1y agoThis is the biggest leopards ate my face moment. After decades of outsourcing to china and pandering to the chinese market for a quick buck, we are now surprised that they have become rich and decide their growth must be curbed. Honestly we in the west deserve everything that is coming to us
- fastball 1y agoIf the West lets it happen, sure. Still seems like there is some amount of time to reverse course and stop handing the future to China if the West so desires. But democracies these days can't help but tie themselves in knots, so not holding my breath.
- jameslk 1y agoThis is not the end. This is the beginning of another Iraq war, set up exactly the same way: claiming, with dubious proof, an imminent risk from weapons of mass destruction. Iran’s options here are to bomb US bases, which are a lot closer by, mine the Strait of Hormuz, blow up oil infrastructure in nearby countries who are harboring US bases. This might risk Iran a much larger war but the alternative of doing nothing and showing the world they won’t defend themselves is worse. The US will again bankroll another big, more expensive war to the tune of trillions more in debt. Another decade of war ahead with no end in sight. Meanwhile, new enemies will be made for the US as a young generation grows up living through this. The cycle repeats.
- PeterHolzwarth 1y agoDubious proof?! Iran has been blatantly pursuing nuclear weapons for decades - and the west (along with much of the rest of the world and the middle east) has been working to counter it the whole time. Remember that in the middle east, Iran is considered a dire enemy.
- jameslk 1y agoYes, dubious proof. A quick Google search can reveal this claim has been bs for decades, consistently evaluated by the US’ own intelligence, up until a day ago [0] But that doesn’t matter anymore 0. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c056zqn6vvyo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c056zqn6vvyo
- rocqua 1y agoIt is very likely false that Iran had nuclear weapons, or was within weeks of having them. This was also the position of US intelligence, until they were forced by higher-ups to speak different words. Of course, Iran very much wanted the ability to make a nuke, and they probably could have had one ready in 1 or 2 years. But the proof put forward in defense of this strike is claiming Iran was weeks away from nukes. That proof is dubious. (Also interesting to consider how US retreat from the nuclear deal under Trump 1 has affected and shaped the current situation)
- gghhzzgghhzz 1y ago
- nsoonhui 1y ago[flagged]
- impossiblefork 1y agoPeople almost always rally behind the political leadership when attacked by another country. I could even imagine that this has happened before in Iran and that the Iran-Iraq war was an important reason why the Mullahs could consolidate their power.
- FilosofumRex 1y ago[flagged]
- dismalaf 1y ago[flagged]
- epolanski 1y agoThe two things aren't mutually exclusive.
- wpm 1y agoExcellent refutation! Come on you gotta at least try
- dismalaf 1y agoNone of the points matter when Iran literally states their goal is nuclear weapons and using them on Israel, over and over again. Straight from the horse's mouth. Yet it's framed as "misconceptions perpetuated by Israel and its 5th column in US media"
- motorest 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- garbagewoman 1y agoThe torrent of downvotes might be related to the lack of substance in your comment
- motorest 1y agoMy point is to underline the fact that the comment had no purpose other than to shoehorn wild claims of "Israel and its 5th column". Do you dispute this fact?
- OfficeChad 1y ago[dead]
- koonsolo 1y agoThis is the "Why don't you use diplomacy?" administration, right? So why didn't the great negotiator use diplomacy?
- snickerbockers 1y agoI'm concerned by the appearance that the Trump administration was negotiating with the Iranians in bad faith to buy time for an Israeli operation Before America joined the war it was a bad look since it benefits us but it still wasn't outside the realm of possibilities that Israel did this of its own initiative since they're obviously insane. Now that we've taken advantage of the opportunity, it really looks like Trump may have been negotiating in bad faith. I'm personally of the opinion that the Israeli operation forced Trump's hand and he realized that he can't trust the Iranians going forward since they have no reason to trust us going forward. That's just my opinion; I obviously can't expect anybody else negotiating nuclear non-proliferation (or anything else related to war or peace) with America in the future to have such an optimistic outlook on this turn of events. If the Israelis did force his hand then I personally can accept that he made the tough call that needed to be made in that moment, but then the next call needs to be distancing us from the Israelis because we can't have an ally that fucks everything up when we're negotiating, *especially* when they literally assassinated the guy who was negotiating with Trump on Iran's behalf.
- s_ting765 1y agoWhich nuclear sites? https://x.com/iaeaorg/status/1936650574939685121 https://x.com/iaeaorg/status/1936650574939685121
- totetsu 1y agoAnd meanwhile the biggest threat to all our security, the climate crisis goes unaddressed.
- dudefeliciano 1y agoand people like Greta Thunberg are labelled self-serving narcisists who deserve getting more scorn than our political leaders who we accept as being "just so".
- harambae 1y agoWell it is odd how Greta Thunberg pivoted to Palestine as her issue, given that climate change is, in her own words, the greatest risk to us all. Feels a little bit narcissistic.
- dudefeliciano 1y ago> pivoted to Palestine as her issue Is that the case? she supports many other causes too, and they do not conflict the idea of climate change being the greatest risk. In her own words climate justice and social justice are inseparable and I can see that point. We are now discussing the narcissism of Greta, a well meaning activist, rather than that of the president of peace, who just bombed Iran. The narcisism of the man who ran on "drill baby drill" is somehow acceptable, was exactly my point.
- dijit 1y agoShe is spending nearly all of her political energy on Palestine and anti-Israel protests. So, its very fair for people to pick up on it, he movements are very public as she is a public figure now.
- Swenrekcah 1y agoThere are many issues one cam care about and some can be more urgent even if not the most serious. I guess she’s hoping she can help humanitarian aid being delivered to Gaza where people are starving and dying right now. I respect her for her efforts in both goals, even if I care more about handling climate change.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- herbst 1y ago> No increase in radiation levels have been detected, the UN's nuclear watchdog says If true they failed to destroy the material (just like last time when the US brought chaos over the world by creating a war out of "they have bombs" lies) If not true, did they actually try to make the world a more poisonous place?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> If true they failed to destroy the material Not true. Caverns can collapse without leaking enough into atmosphere to trigger detection. The simple answer is we don’t really know; we may not be able to know.
- zorobo 1y agoThe material cannot be destroyed. However, uranium hexafluoride is very heavy and won't go far. Also, it reverts into a solid at ≤ 56 °C. Finally, it has a very long half life, meaning it is not super radioactive.
- b0rat 1y ago[dead]
- compiler_queen 1y ago[dead]
- disambiguation 1y ago[flagged]
- karmakurtisaani 1y agoFunny how diplomacy is not an option for you.
- disambiguation 1y agoI'm neither endorsing nor advocating for any sides or actions taken, I'm offering what I think is the correct lens to explain this behavior. Most people look at Israel's actions in a Gaza and say wow how could Israel do that. They look at the bombing and say wow how could the US do that. Yet none of these things are happening in a vacuum, they're related to everything else going on in the world. There's nothing forgivable about mass murder and violence, but in the course of international relationships this is the kind of calculus that defines these decisions. Diplomacy is nice when its an option, I don't know why it didn't prevail here but legitimate attempts were made by the US to mediate. Unless you think it was all bad faith from the start, which is a different argument entirely.
- seydor 1y agoThere is a lot of equating "The West" with israel in this. A LOT of the west is not behind what israel is doing , not even americans are. Iran is a very minor threat to europe and US, and very minor threat in general. There is nothing ideological about this war, nobody seriously believes that. It's 100% power play
- karmakurtisaani 1y agoThis is just putting to action Israel's long term plan of getting US in war with Iran.
- tgv 1y agoThe same goes for Iran, of course: I'd wager the majority of them would rather see the current regime go.
- mukmuk 1y ago[flagged]
- karmakurtisaani 1y agoI was not very happy with the settlements of West Bank ongoing for decades, but kind of thought every side is to blame and the situation is complex. It's not complex anymore.
- dyauspitr 1y agoYeah I’m having a hard time giving the actual people of Israel the benefit of the doubt these days.
- bigbacaloa 1y ago[dead]
- UltraSane 1y agoIran NEVER needed to enrich uranium if it only wanted nuclear electricity. It could have imported enriched uranium fuel rods for its nuclear reactor. Spending so much on deeply buried enrichment facilities was ALWAYS about getting nuclear weapons.
- thehappypm 1y agoWhy did they even want nuclear energy to begin with? A country so wildly fossil fuel rich as Iran has no incentive to produce expensive nuclear energy..
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- andy_ppp 1y agoJust out of interest are large parts of Iran set to be radioactive for tens of thousands of years? What happens to all the radioactive dust? What is stopping Iran producing dirty ballistic missiles that would make Tel Aviv uninhabitable? Just the threat of nuclear retaliation?
- wvbdmp 1y agoAs I understand it, radiation is more or less a non-issue here, because uranium is only very weakly radioactive. There may be some uranium pollution at the immediate sites, but nothing like clouds of radiation blowing across the land with the wind.
- k4rli 1y ago[flagged]
- dijit 1y agoI'm really tired of people saying "actual terrorism"; as if there's not an actual definition of what terrorism is. For those following along; the definition of terrorism is: > the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear Which civilians are hiding in uranium enrichment plants? Sites that are claimed to not be for nuclear power, but for making weapons.
- tim333 1y agoWikipedia definition: "violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims" Taking out enemy nukes may not fit.
- artoghrul 1y agoThe military industrial complex always wins in the US, even if the whole reason why you get elected is because you were against it. A majestic mockery of democracy.
- HellDunkel 1y agoThere is more to be said about the voters than about the military industrial complex here.
- seydor 1y agothe voters cannot be held accountable, but politicians can
- righthand 1y ago[flagged]
- k33n 1y ago[flagged]
- righthand 1y agoTariffs didn’t crash the economy because he lowered them back to pretty much exactly what they were before he was in office. Had he implemented his insane plan to keep tariffs high, the economy would have crashed. All the carve outs for all the major industries…I’m not sure what you think was a success. People ARE dying because USAID was scrapped. It will be in the millions by the end of his term. Do you understand how starvation and disease work? It doesn’t happen the day you cut off funding for a tax break for the rich. You must be living under a rock to think any of his actions have been effective. You do get to be held accountable for your vote when you eat the result of letting this mad man into a powerful leadership position. When prices go up, you no longer get to turn around and say “liberals did this”. When they deploy ground troops in Iran for 20 years, you do not get to blame “all of us Americans”. When you get pushed out of your social activities because people hear you support genocide in Gaza and going to war in Iran after tearing up agreements and enabling violations of cease-fires like a child, you do not get to turn around and say “I’m satisfied so you must be too. It’s not fair that I’m being socially prosecuted.” It goes on and on because that’s how reality works if you never follow up then you will never know the effect and the rate at which it happens. Keep plugging your ears!
- jtfrench 1y agoBodes well this does not.
- Bostonian 1y agoTrump Meets the Moment on Iran The President bombs three nuclear sites to spare the world from an intolerable risk. Wall Street Journal Editorial Board June 22, 2025 1:01 am ET President Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s three most significant nuclear sites on Saturday helped rid the world of a grave nuclear threat and was a large step toward restoring U.S. deterrence. It also creates an opportunity for a more peaceful Middle East, if the nations of the region will seize it. “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,” Mr. Trump said Saturday night. He made clear Iran brought this on itself. “For 40 years, Iran has been saying ‘death to America,’ ‘death to Israel.’ They’ve been killing our people,” he said, citing 1,000 Americans killed by Iran-supplied roadside bombs and other means. A nuclear Iran was a perilous threat to Israel, the nearby Arab states, and America. Mr. Trump gave Iran every chance to resolve this peacefully. The regime flouted his 60-day deadline to make a deal. Then Israel attacked, destroying much of the nuclear program and achieving air supremacy, and still the President gave Iran another chance to come to terms. The regime wouldn’t even abandon domestic uranium enrichment. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wanted a bomb more than peace. Military conflict is often unpredictable and the potential for Iranian retaliation can’t be dismissed, no matter how self-destructive it would be. Iran and its Iraqi proxies have threatened U.S. regional bases with missile fire, but Mr. Trump warned that “future attacks will be far greater” if Iran goes down that road. The U.S. has evacuated some personnel and brought military assets into the region. If the regime values self-preservation, it will give up its nuclear ambitions and stand down. Much of the press has fixated on the idea that Mr. Trump has now joined or even started a conflict. But Iran has been waging regional and terrorist war for decades. It’s as likely that he has helped end it. Leaving Iran with a hardened nuclear enrichment facility after an Israeli military campaign would have been a recipe for maximum danger, all but asking Iran to sprint to a bomb. At the same time, the Israeli campaign yielded a unrivaled strategic opportunity. Suddenly, Iran’s airspace was uncontested. Its substantial ballistic-missile program was degraded. Several of its proxies had been bludgeoned into silence. Its nuclear program had been reduced to a few key sites, one of which only U.S. weapons could be trusted to penetrate. The opportunity to act and the danger of standing pat may have proved decisive. We would say that they left Mr. Trump little choice, except U.S. Presidents always have a choice, and have been known to kick the can down the road. To his credit, Mr. Trump didn’t, hitting the Fordow enrichment site as well as Natanz and Isfahan. This shows the President wanted to leave no doubt about Iran’s nuclear program and take it all down. Good for him for meeting the moment, despite the doubts from part of his political base. The isolationists were wrong at every step leading up to Saturday, and now they are again predicting another Iraq, if not a road to World War III. Mr. Trump had to act to stop the threat in front of him to protect America, which is his first obligation as President. “History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world’s most dangerous regime the world’s most dangerous weapons,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Saturday night. Mr. Trump thanked him and said “we worked as a team.” The Israelis, who proved their strategic value as an ally, would like to complete the mission by destroying what remains of Iran’s missile infrastructure. They deserve a green light, especially as those missiles are threatening U.S. bases. The chatter about TACO—“Trump always chickens out”—will now quiet down, but the more significant reassessment has to do with U.S. foreign policy. The Obamaites of the left, and lately of the right, counseled that the world had to bow to Iranian intimidation. The best we could hope for was a flimsy deal that bribed Iran with billions and left open its path to a bomb. They were wrong.
- Simon_O_Rourke 1y agoThat's an all around bad move for the US. Getting dragged into an Israeli war and probably having to carry the can for the next few years alone after getting into a mess not of our own making (well directly anyway). This is going to hit gas prices, the markets and US security considerations all in order to help keep the current Israeli leadership out of Israeli prisons. Bad move.
- tim333 1y agoDunno - better than the alternative of Iran getting nukes.
- karmakurtisaani 1y agoIt was not one or the other. Don't buy into that bullshit.
- insane_dreamer 1y agoWe’ve been “on the verge” of Iran getting nukes for decades. They’re about as credible as Saddam’s WMDs at this point. And even if they did I’m not sure that’s so bad. The fact that India and Pakistan both have nukes may help provide a deterrent due to MAD. Might do the same for Iran and Israel (which has nukes already).
- zild3d 1y ago> the US. Getting dragged into an Israeli war A lot of people saying this, what would this actually entail? My money is much more on this being a "1 and done" exchange. Iran poses very little threat now, launchers being taken out everyday, leadership chain wiped out, seemingly no other Iran allies getting pulled into the fold
- karmakurtisaani 1y agoThis only happens if Iran sits there and takes it. What if they close the strait? Or shoot missiles to US bases?
- Eavolution 1y agoI thought part of Trump's campaign was that he'd distance the US from foreign conflicts and not get involved so much. Is he trying to renege on every single thing he campaigned on?
- wvbdmp 1y agoI think this one is less of a Trump flip-flop in particular. It seems that US presidents just can’t defy these things, even when their whole point is being an outsider. The pressures and propaganda a president is subject to must hit substantially different. Or, if you will, the realities they have to face. Obama ran on closing Gitmo and even that he couldn’t do in two terms (which seems especially absurd in light of Trump’s evident power to just make things happen unilaterally). I’m no Trump supporter but I do still think he was in a unique position to ignore this sort of stuff. Pity it wasn’t enough.
- ozgrakkurt 1y agoAll the discussion about who is right, wo would win etc. aside. Israel should be a big wakeup call to muslim countries. With so little population and surrounded by so many hostile countries, they manage to be so strong and be able to defend themselves. It is a big shame that many muslim countries are under dysfunctional governments and struggling to make progress so they can’t even protect themselves. Personally I don’t agree with any kind of war but it is not realistic to expect everything to be fine while fighting inside your country, with a backwards mindset, discussing religion etc. not working honestly and expecting to prosper.
- password54321 1y agoThe counterbalance is Turkey at the moment. Saudi Arabia seems to be a careful observer much more interested in business than military conquest and much of the rest of the middle east is already crippled.
- _zagj 1y agohttps://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4755-6-17 https://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articl... Most Muslim countries have horrifically high rates of consanguineous marriage, which directly results in reduced intelligence, increased birth defects, and other worse health outcomes. It also gives rise to dysfunctional, competitive clan structures that fragment and corrupt society: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/cousin-marriage-conundrum/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/cousin-marriage-conu... These countries will never be competitive and non-dysfunctional until they cut back on the practice.
- throwanem 1y agoMay as well get on the record here and now I'm against it, I guess. Not that anyone's asking my opinion, I'm from among the social classes whose job it is to go get killed in these things so the wealthy have something to be erect and/or lachrymose about. But this way at least when I'm old and facing kidney failure I can tell some smug young snot I espoused their politics before they learned the word "cool."
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- pelorat 1y ago[flagged]
- twixfel 1y agoAnd then for the same Americans who utterly despise Europe to declare how Europe has become a shithole due to refugees and boost support for our right wing populist parties.
- Ciantic 1y agoThe only way out of this in the long term is via negotiations. The US and Israel were lucky that Iran built their Fordow plant only 50 meters underground. What will the US do when Iran rebuilds it far deeper? They have a coal mine going 1200 meters deep. Iran is technologically far more capable than North Korea, which ultimately succeeded in building the bomb. The US knows this and wouldn't have started this war if Israel hadn't done it first. The first Iran deal in 2015 was not perfect, but it would have provided some guarantees for 15 years. If Iran is determined, how many years has this bombing bought? If I had to guess, Israel is back calling doom ~3 years when the US is having new elections. Israel doesn't want the removal of the Iran sanctions, why would they? This means whatever deal the US makes with Iran, it's not going to be good enough for Israel.
- Stevvo 1y agoThere is another way out that may be more likely than negotiations; Iran will now obtain a nuclear weapon. Iran has had the capability to build one for as long as Netanyahu has been singing about it(20+ years). Now they have the motivation also.
- bamboozled 1y agoIf they had the capability , why was this a bad move and how does taking out their bomb making facilities more likely they can now just produce a bomb ?
- HEmanZ 1y agoThe main reason to want a bomb is to stop people from interfering with/attacking you. It has now become even more obvious to them that the most powerful country on earth is willing to attack them in order to control them and their region. Their calculus just went from “probably screwed if we don’t have nukes” to “definitely screwed if we don’t have nukes”. They’ll find a way now, they can always dig deeper.
- jraby3 1y ago
- pythonic_hell 1y agoIt’s sad to see how Europe leaders are reacting to this and further show how Europe is a vassal state to the US in all but name. Europe is going to have to pick up the tab for the inevitable refugee and migrant crisis that will result from a wider war in the region - which they won’t be able to afford thanks to Trumps 5% military spending demand. Imagine what it means for Europe if a fraction of 90 million people (5 times larger than Syria) suddenly find themselves in a situation that would necessitate fleeing for survival.
- tim333 1y agoHow are Europe's leaders reacting to this? I'm not sure the rest of the world can do much except watch.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- buyucu 1y agoIf this doesn't convince Iran to make nuclear bombs, nothing will.
- DobarDabar 1y ago[flagged]
- AStonesThrow 1y ago[dead]
- austin-cheney 1y agoI see a lot of nonsense in the comments. Here are the facts: 1. Iran may or may not have been building a nuclear weapon. US intelligence says they were at least 3 years away. 2. Iran did not attack Israel. Israel attacked Iran. 3. Iran did not attack the US. The US bombed Iran only because Israel asked the US to do so.
- geeunits 1y agoHas everyone forgotten the music festival massacre?
- austin-cheney 1y agoNot Iran related and not US related.
- geeunits 1y agoAh, it happened in a vacuum -- got it.
- austin-cheney 1y agoThat is what all the intelligence says. I am unclear what you are hinting at.
- tgv 1y agoHamas was installed, backed and supplied by Iran.
- austin-cheney 1y agoPlease stop making shit up. Hamas was voted into power. Iran had nothing to do with the Oct7 attack on Israeli civilians. They were not part of the planning, had no prior knowledge of it, and supplied no material support for it. Actually, let’s take this to the next level. Iran did provide financial support to Hamas. So, did Israel. * https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up... * https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/qatar-sent-millions-to-hamas-for-years-and-netanyahu-encouraged-it-heres-why-13495242.html https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/qatar-sent-millions-to-... * https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-security-forces-escorted-suitcases-cash-hamas-qatar-report-2023-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-security-forces-escor...
- ianks 1y agoNo one in their right mind wants the Supreme Leader armed with nukes… but there are many ways to prevent this outcome.
- Aachen 1y agoI first read this as referring to Trump but I can't quite place the rest of the comment. Do you mean whoever is in charge of Iran or is it a way of saying both/either?
- luckylion 1y agoSupreme Leader (officially Supreme Leadership Authority) is the head of state of Iran, combining both political and religious ultimate power, appointed for life.
- TurboTveit 1y agoIt is the official title for the head of state in Iran.
- croes 1y agoWould it change much if Iran had nukes? Israel has nukes too so as soon Iran bombs Israel they strike back, not to mention the US reaction. MAD would lead to a stalemate
- grumple 1y agoIran believes in martyrdom, which absolutely changes the reasoning. They would destroy Israel in a heartbeat even if it meant losing 90% of their population.
- nsingh2 1y ago> Iran believes in martyrdom Don't confuse religious rhetoric with actual state behavior. In Iran’s case the highest religious authority has repeatedly issued a fatwa declaring the use of nuclear weapons forbidden. Pakistan’s army motto invokes jihad, yet it has treated its arsenal as a shield against invasion so far, not a ticket to paradise. Israel’s so-called Samson Option evokes a biblical suicide attack, but I doubt they'll use nukes for anything but deterrent. North Korean propaganda urges citizens to die for the Leader, and I'm sure there are other nations I've not listed who's dominant religions have some sort of martyrdom idea, which use nukes as deterrents. Look at political interests, command structures, and the costs of escalation, not whether a nation honors death in battle (which one doesn't?)
- einrealist 1y agoThose UN buildings in Geneva and New York, are they up for sale already? What about the buildings of the US Congress?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- paulryanrogers 1y agoCongress itself has been for sale for quite some time. Even more openly now than ever.
- v5v3 1y agoI am confused. Iran knew USA would come along one day, and they knew the max capability of the bombs they would drop. So why did they not go a lot deeper/reinforce to a level where the b52 payloads cannot reach.
- christophilus 1y agoHow do we know they didn’t? I’d be surprised if this is actually one and done.
- tasuki 1y agoTrump tweeted it, must be definitely true!
- kkarakk 1y agopretty basic - they know they have no chance of hiding from the US. so they go plausibly in reach but outside of being casually bombed by missiles from israel. the moment they go deep US will go after them hard.
- luckylion 1y agoThe GBU-57A started service in 2011. Fordow was completed in 2006, Natanz somewhere before 2002, so there's a good chance they did not know that kind of bomb would be available. While they could've said "let's just assume there will be something X times stronger than anything known", it would also have increase the price to build these facilities by a factor of X+Y. I'm no expert, but I imagine once you have your centrifuges up and running, you don't want to continue setting of blasts nearby to add another sub-level to your plant.
- TiredOfLife 1y agoThese bombs were basically made to target these specific facilities.
- RankingMember 1y agoIt's very possible that Iran moved the important stuff off-site before the attacks. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/22/nx-s1-5441734/satellites-show-damage-iran-nuclear-program-not-destroyed-experts-say https://www.npr.org/2025/06/22/nx-s1-5441734/satellites-show... > "The program has been seriously set back, but there's a lot of odds and ends," Albright says. Ultimately he thinks the only way to truly end Iran's nuclear program is through additional nuclear inspections by international monitors and cooperation from the Iranian regime, probably through some kind of diplomatic agreement. Weird, kinda like what we had with the Iran Nuclear Deal that our president pulled us out of.
- Bluestein 1y agoAnother bunch of smoking craters, another sovereign warning shot. Iran’s nuclear facilities go up in flames yet again, and the script rolls on—same actors, same lines.- The elite nuclear club, forged in fire and sealed with hypocrisy, has made its position unmistakably clear: if you're not already in, you're never getting in. The path to national security does not run through treaties or IAEA inspections — it runs through enrichment, warheads, and the credible threat of annihilation. The lesson from history is as brutal as it is consistent: Those who gave up their deterrents — Saddam, Gaddafi, Ukraine — earned their place not at the table, but under the table.- Non-proliferation, once wrapped in the language of peace and stability, now reads more like a cartel agreement. An exclusive arrangement to ensure the existing shareholders retain total dominance over the levers of this existential power. Meanwhile, aspiring states are lectured on restraint while having their infrastructure surgically removed via high explosives, or worse, sanctioned into collapse.- It’s not deterrence anymore. It’s deterrence for some. The rest? They’re told to disarm and die quietly. Welcome to the age of managed apocalypse — where those with the bomb hold the moral high ground by sheer altitude, and everyone else is collateral in the performance of global order.-
- v5v3 1y agoAll the talk in the west is about extreme Muslims, or extreme Jews. But every group has their extremists. We need to not forget the extreme Christians...
- frob 1y agoSuch as the US secretary of "defense", Pete Hegseth, who has the Latin phrase for "god wills it" tattooed on his bicep. A phrase that is also the motto of the first crusade.
- v5v3 1y agoYes. The people are being lied to, the extreme elements of the two largest global religions, whichever it happens to be, will always be at some direct or indirect conflict. And it's a shame one side is pretending they are not driving it, but that their tiny little proxy country is.
- ujkhsjkdhf234 1y agoBefore the election, I had conservatives telling me that Trump is anti-war and the world will be more stable under him. The war in Ukraine he promised to end is still ongoing, Gaza is still being bombed to nothing, and now US is kicking off war against Iran. I don't understand how you all keep falling for it.
- mark_l_watson 1y agoA liberal Israeli friend has told me on a few occasions that Iran is one of the safest places in the Middle East for Christians and Jews to live, work, and raise families as long as they don’t publicly protest against the Iranian government. I have no way of knowing if my friend is correct about this, but with the conflicting news broadcasts in the USA the situation is as confusing as hell. Off topic, but I have started finding news shows on the Internet from different countries like Singapore to try to figure out some semblance of truth about the world.
- gspencley 1y agoOne way to get some insight into this is to look at the demographic break down of Iran pre and post 1979 revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iran#Religious_affiliations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iran#Religious... Pre-1979, per the 1976 census, Iran had a Jewish population of 62,258 (0.2%). Post-revolution it immediately fell to ~9k, where it has remained - at least until the last census in 2016 (0.0% representation). While Christian representation didn't decline by the same amount, it took a sharp decline as well. Pre revolution (1976) saw a Christian representation of around 0.5%. 30 years later (2006 census) it was 0.2%. What conclusions you should draw from that are open to interpretation... and when it comes to life in the Middle East and North Africa, you can also draw relative comparisons (is Iran worse or better for these groups?). But it's usually not a good sign when the population of an ethic or religious minority takes a sharp and sudden decline.
- throw310822 1y agoIn the case of the Jewish population, Israel is relatively close, with a comparatively higher standard of living and free entry, and there is a strong incentive for Jews to emigrate there even in the absence of hostility or outside pressure.
- nivertech 1y agoIt’s not close - Israel is an island, you can’t drive or fly from Iran to Israel … yet The Iranian Jews had to immigrate via another countries, I guess via Europe. Also boys had first to serve in the army to earn right to travel outside Iranian borders
- johncole 1y agoIs HN getting political now?
- nailer 1y agoIt had been in the last few months. More political stories make the front page and the mods seem to allow more political discussion. The effect has not been positive.
- neilv 1y agoCalling something "political" these days can sound dismissive. The news of the US entering a war, with a first-strike major bombing, is extremely serious.
- wslh 1y agoFrom a game-theoretical perspective, the key question is whether Iran was actually developing a bomb with the intention to use it, rather than adhering to the Cold War logic of deterrence. Most people seem to assume the latter, but the former was also a plausible possibility.
- bigyabai 1y agoThere's no game theory to question. Israel has second-strike capabilities, and even if they get completely glassed America would retaliate by cratering Tehran. Iran needs a nuclear weapon for the precisely same reason Israel's state demands them; it's a credible last-ditch deterrent against invading forces. A strategic weapon when the chessboard is scrambled. Whether or not any of that is justified is another question, arguably long since expired. Strategic arms reduction is a two-way road, it requires transparency and genuine humility from both parties at the table. It's why Reagan could never secure his deal from Gorbachev, and it's why Trump won't reach a deal playing "mad gunman" with the B-2.
- NalNezumi 1y agoOne thing about this situation is that makes me reassess my impression of "deep state / military industrial complex". Both Trump and Tulsi Gabbard (pre election) was running a "no war" platform with heavy connotation of "deep state" and wars only serving special interests (including Israel). My impression was that this outsider aspect really bought many libertarian and non-hawk republicans vote. Hell, Gabbard was even branded Russian parrot after trying to talk to Assad, running as an independent after that. She even disagreed about this strike not even 3 months ago, 1 month ago and few days ago, with Trump. But now they support it. They all just lied during election is the most probable reason but at least Gabbard have been saying same thing since 2016 election, 8 years, and all it took was Israel striking to go "aight let's go". Is there just some information available to high official positions that makes you turn 180 on your opinion as soon as you get access to it, or what.
- soared 1y agoSeemingly a public facing opinion is not some deeply held belief for your platform, but simply a means to an end (IE votes from libertarians). Actual short term and long term objectives mean making decisions that go against your publicly stated stances - a political risk that could alienate your base, but clearly not impacted by the fact that you’ve claimed the opposite for many years.
- tim333 1y agoVoter polls?
- nsingh2 1y agoUS foreign policy is uniparty: anti-war candidates enter office, face pre-existing security briefs, donors, contracts, and pro-Israel politics, and align with the existing consensus. Much of the money fueling election campaigns flows from entrenched defense contractors, lobbyists, and think tanks. That momentum has more predictive power than what the current "Commander-in-chief" claims they'll do. Campaign rhetoric may change, but policy is harder, and this is another reason to believe that US democracy is a veneer.
- beefnugs 1y ago
- bettercallsalad 1y agoHow many million of dollars were spent in this spectacle? And to my average American, 50% of who seemingly live paycheck to paycheck, is this what you want your government to be doing? Asking as a Canadian.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- chasd00 1y agoI’m a US citizen and I don’t think it was necessary. Israel is doing just fine dismantling Iran in its own. If they can’t reach the underground sites from the air then task special forces to go in and blow them up from the inside. What I think happened is Trump got jealous of Israel’s success and wanted to do something so he could take some credit.
- steeve 1y ago[flagged]
- password54321 1y agoThe pattern continues. Continue to create a power vacuum in the middle east, leaving the two military heavyweights: Israel and Turkey to take over. The question is when will the inevitable clash between them happen?
- jmyeet 1y agoOh, that's an easy question. It will never happen. Why? Because they're both US puppets in the region. You can't look at what the leaders of these countries say. You look at what they do. Turkey's population, for example, is extremely sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians. Erdogan will even get up there and bang the drums about Israel's evils. But that's just to placate the populace. In reality, he's done absolutely nothing when he could fatally wound Israel if he so chose. There are allegations Erdogan's family (his son, specifically) is still doing business with Israel. Israel and Turkey have largely cooperated with the collapse of Syria. Both regimes simply cannot exist without material support, arms specifically, from the US. What could turkey do? Cut off Israel's energy imports. IIRC ~40% of Israel's energy comes from Azerbijan from a pipeline that transits Turkey. Erdogan could absolutely shut it off if he wanted to. That would absolutely cripple Israel. But he doesn't. Because he's not actually opposed to Israel.
- password54321 1y agoDomestic military production in Turkey is ramping up especially in air defence while currently building the "Steel Dome" obviously inspired by Israel's Iron Dome [0] and partially in response to Israel's military conquest. Israel funded the PKK in Syria to attack Turkish armed forces [1] though the PKK have recently dissolved. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/17/heres-a-look-at-turkiyes-booming-defence-industry https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/17/heres-a-look-at-tur... [1] https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/dark-and-dangerous-israel-pkk-relationship-in-the-middle-east https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/dark-and-dangerous-...
- derelicta 1y ago[flagged]
- Rover222 1y agoObviously complicated and dangerous, but I’m surprised (or, not really) how many people here are quick to condemn Israel and the US, with no consideration that the official Iranian policy is the ELIMINATION of Israel. Of course Israel cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Israel has many nukes, and in fact does not commit genocide, despite being capable. Some Islamic regimes would be much more likely to use that power, IMO.
- tasuki 1y ago> Israel has many nukes, and in fact does not commit genocide This is being debated. A European judge who questioned this recently had his email access revoked by Microsoft.
- dlubarov 1y agoYou mean Khan? The charges he tried to prosecute didn't include genocide. Khan's initial list included extermination, but that was rejected by the pre-trial chamber.
- croes 1y agoThe question is if Iran really was nearly capable of building nukes. Everything else doesn’t matter as long the words aren’t followed by action.
- Rover222 1y agoOf course they were near. Their mostly highly enriched uranium could have been further enriched to a crude bomb level within weeks. The question is not if they were near, but if they intended on crossing that line. Not something that Israel could just sit and wait for.
- croes 1y agoSource for that? Here it‘s less clear https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn840275p5yo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn840275p5yo Sound more like Musk‘s „FSD is ready next year“
- sepisoad 1y agoAs Iranians, we are exhausted and frustrated with the Islamic regime in Iran, which has proven to be more destructive than any weapon. Despite numerous attempts to peacefully change the regime, each effort has been met with brutal violence, mass killings of civilians, and imprisonment of anyone who dares to oppose them. Over time, we’ve realized that protests alone cannot overthrow this regime; it requires a force stronger than them to bring about change. Now, after 45 years, Israel’s strikes on the regime’s key figures and military installations have given us a glimmer of hope. When my non-Iranian friends ask how I feel, I tell them I’m overjoyed—this is something we’ve dreamed of for decades. War is not ideal, but in a far-from-perfect world, it can sometimes prevent greater harm. This conflict is doing just that by challenging a regime that promotes a toxic ideology, one that disregards human life and thrives on death and destruction to achieve its goals. While many Iranians feel hopeful that this could pave the way for real change, it’s disheartening to see left-leaning activists worldwide aligning with apologists for the mullahs’ regime, chanting “Stop the war.” This is deeply troubling. Where were they during the past 45 years when the regime slaughtered thousands, forced countless people into exile, oppressed women and minorities, executed LGBTQ individuals, and held Western travelers hostage to extort foreign governments? To those who believe they’re doing good by opposing this war, you are, at best, a useful idiot supporting the mullahs’ regime. You cannot fathom the consequences if this conflict ends without decisively weakening them—Iran’s people would face an even darker era. I’m not here to glorify Netanyahu or Trump, but their actions have achieved something we’ve long hoped for. My hope is that this leads to the complete dismantling of the regime and its proxies.
- tim333 1y agoI was thinking this could actually be a moment of hope for the world with Iran and Russia both wobbly it could be the fall of a good chunk of the world's murderous dictatorships.
- swat535 1y agoAs another Iranian, I don't think you would have taken this stance and supporting the actions of Israel and United States if you knew the history and the aftermath of IRAN-IRAQ war. I'm fairly against this and most of my friends where I live think I’m with the Mullahs. It’s not a questions of who’s bad or good. It all comes down to the fact that a foreign government and military attacked our LAND. History repeats itself and shows patterns. Look at the patterns. Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Many then thought USA will bring democracy and freedom and economic benefits and relief. But what ended up happening is hundreds of thousands of innocents died, millions were displaced, and all the infrastructure was bombed and those countries were set back 50 years. And all western oil companies took over the oil fields of that country. Netanyahu and the Zionists have been saying Iran is a couple months away from a nuclear weapon for 25 years now. All lies. It’s like the boy who cried wolf. While Israel illegally has nuclear weapons themselves and don’t disclose their nuclear program or allow inspections. Iran signed the non proliferation treaty and Israel to this day has not signed it. Even all western experts and analysts say they Iran does not have nuclear weapons or a plan to build one. Tulsi Gabbard, the US national security advisor said a couple months ago that Iran has no nuclear weapons or plans to make a weapon. They attacked us first and when Iran retaliates they say Israel has a right to defend itself. It’s hypocrisy in broad daylight. Using the nuclear enrichment and weapons is a decoy and a false premise. Netanyahu has wanted to topple Iran and invade since 2000. There’s videos of him saying it in congress. He specifically named Iraq, Syria, Lybia and Iran. They got 3 out of the 4 and now they wanna come for Iran. You’d be naive and blind to think Israeli army or Americans won’t target civilians. They would bomb all universities, airports, bridges, railroads, ports, electric and oil fields and anything they want. Look at what they did in Iraq, Syria, Lybia and gaza. What makes you think they won’t do the same in Iran? On top of all that the scary thing is Iran has a lot of enemies in the region. Many countries want to see Iran fall. And Iran unfortunately has a lot of separatist traitors. This would create a power vacuum and civil war and anarchy. If we want revolution it must be for the people and by the people, not outside intervention. If you have issues with your family and hate them, you wouldn’t side with your family’s enemy, even though you might hate them… We’re the nation of Cyrus the great, Darius, Xerxes, Nader shah, Reza shah, Ferdowsi….Where is your pride and honor? We’re 90 million strong and 75 times larger than Israel. Our ancestors would turn in their grave if they saw the Iranians that side with enemy and are so naive to think they want the best for us. Why would they spend billion of dollars and fight for me and you? Thinkkkk If you’re asking why Iran won’t negotiate. Iran was negotiating. Negotiations don’t take just one day. Even during the nuclear deal in 2015 signed with Obama administration it took them 3-4 years. A deal which the US ripped apart and left under Trumps first term. A 6th session of negotiations was set for Sunday June 15th, but Israel attacked Iran on June 12. Sabotaging any negotiations and they killed all out top nuclear scientists and chief negotiators. What does that signal? They don’t want negotiation it was all lies all along. Even Trump was saying negotiations was going well a couple days before June 15th and suddenly they attacked. They cannot be trusted. We have no one but ourselves. All these western democracies that scream and champion for human rights and freedom are silent and won’t help us. They don’t care about us. Believe me they don’t. They sell weapons to Israel and they sold weapons to Iraq in 1980s. The same countries that coward and traitor Iranians side with are the ones selling weapons to Israel. Our beloved brothers and sisters are dying and getting wounded with the weapons these champions of democracy and human rights (USA, Germany, France, UK….) give Israel. They’re all hypocrites. They will set us back 50 years or more by targeting highways, airports, universities and hospitals and all infrastructure. They turned a blind eye when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 and helped Iraq and they’re doing the same with Israel’s invasion. They never wanted to see a strong Iran through history. They ousted the Shah and left him too. Even Reza Shah or his son would not bow down to this or surrender to any foreign government. Have some pride and honor and remember your 3000 year old history and culture. They’d wipe away our nationality and history. Those who side with and help the enemy of our motherland and nation just because they’re against the current government would sell their soul, family and own countrymen too. They have no soul, honor or integrity.
- throwawaybob420 1y ago[flagged]
- postsantum 1y agoVery common among software engineers unfortunately. Successfully jumping between js frameworks and being paid well for it make people think they can do it with anything after reading manuals (CNN op-eds)
- throwawaybob420 1y ago“You see, Iran is a bad country full of MUSLIMS, who seemingly hate us because of our freedoms as per Fareed Zakaria. I believe as part of a logical deduction, this is the only reason. Not because our country has overthrown their democracy in the 50s, or caused widespread death and destruction throughout the entire region, or…”
- VikingCoder 1y ago"The U.N. nuclear watchdog says there's 'no increase in off-site radiation levels' after US strikes on Iran nuclear sites" https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-n-nuclear-watchdog-says-051049107.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-n-nuclear-watchdog-says-0510491... That's the whole article. If we blow up a place filled with enriched uranium, shouldn't there be an obvious spike in off-site radiation levels, as the uranium settles to the ground? Meaning, isn't this damning evidence that there was no enriched uranium?
- throwawaybob420 1y ago[flagged]
- lolinder 1y agoPossibly. It could also be evidence that the bombs didn't really do their job. Either they missed or the bunkers were fortified enough and/or deep enough to avoid even the bunker busters.
- bigyabai 1y agoIn Iran's defense, there was credible OSINT[0] warning of the B-2s taking off 12+ hours in advance of the strike. Iran knows what a GBU-57 is, the writing was pretty clearly on the wall that a strike was imminent. It's possible (though not guaranteed) that they simply relocated the enriched uranium before the attack. [0] https://x.com/thenewarea51/status/1936391071430308207 https://x.com/thenewarea51/status/1936391071430308207
- lolinder 1y agoYes, that too. It was in newspapers hours before the attack, so there's no way Iran didn't know it was coming.
- perihelions 1y ago> "there was credible OSINT[0] warning" That one was counterintelligence deliberately placed in OSINT to confuse Iran. The B-2's that flew west over CONUS in daylight, in plain view, were decoys on a wrong timing. https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/the-u-s-strike-on-iran-began-with-a-ruse-c7188cd2 https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/the-u-s-strik... ("U.S. Strike on Iran Began With a Ruse")
- mrcwinn 1y agoWe tend to prefer stories where there is neatly a good guy and a bad guy. Much easier to reason and support our own moral perspective. Reality doesn’t work like that. Netanyahu may indeed be a war criminal. That doesn’t make Iran the good guy and it doesn’t mean their stonewalling was not likely shielding the development of an offensive nuclear capability. America’s sole responsibility is in its protection and the deterrence of these programs, regardless of who you have to hitch your wagon to. I really wish peace with Iran were possible. I see no evidence they’re interested in that peace.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- steve76 1y ago[dead]
- weatherlite 1y agoI wish more people were able to perform more balanced/critical thinking like that instead of constantly cheering for their team.
- farts_mckensy 1y agoIf America's responsibility is deterrence, why do we invade countries that don't have nuclear capabilities? Don't you suppose that incentivizes every country watching this to develop nukes? They see that if they don't, eventually they'll get invaded. That's the opposite of deterrence.
- adonese 1y agoNot sure how that plays out with international law. It started to feel more like guidelines and less of rules. I get that it has always been the case, but this feels like the final straw.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- devzx 1y agoThis thread is a prime example of education != wisdom.
- uncircle 1y agoIt’s not even education. Many people operate on the belief that being able to use Google and following a couple “experts” on Twitter, of both sides, automatically qualifies their opinion. At best everyone is repeating the same propaganda talking points, whether US or Iranian (though most of us are from Western countries, so it skews heavily on one side). The Internet is an echo chamber of ill-informed opinions.
- GMoromisato 1y agoNot the whole thread--just the posts I disagree with.
- AaronAPU 1y agoI think both sides can agree, the other side is stupid and evil.
- simpaticoder 1y agoOr rather, a prime example of education != wisdom != experience. Who has experience operating at the geopolitical scale? Very, very few. And this is by nature of the problem: coherent choices are only made at the individual level, by political leaders. The real cohort that should be considered expert are therefore political leaders, past and present. Unfortunately, they all have deeply ingrained bias for their own nation's geopolitical goals, and so cannot be objective. To make matters worse, the context of every crisis point is so unique as to be almost worthless in meeting the demands of the next one, so even experience is not necessarily enough for expertise. I would argue that the best voices to listen to about such matters are the academic historians that focus on the region involved, and who've studied in great detail the evolution of the region over time, how crises were resolved in the past, and who therefore have an informed intuition for the current state of the region. Furthermore, because they are academics they are practiced in objectivity -- the ability to look at horrifying situations with fascination rather than disgust. But such experts tend to be ignored for two reasons: they generally aren't charismatic enough to get attention, and "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it; those who do know history are doomed to watch others repeat it". This might seem rather gloomy. It is precisely the same level of gloom with which we would watch any slow-moving natural phenomena threaten life on Earth, for example. Like seeing a nearby supernova explode, knowing that one of it's nuetrino jets will eventually rotate and hit us within 100 years. The mass and momentum of geopolitics is enormous and almost impossible to change, with or without understanding. So, we chat with each other, armchair quarterbacking this game in which no-one really has control.
- perihelions 1y agoNew updates on the estimates of damage at Fordo: > "A senior U.S. official acknowledged that the American strike on the Fordo site did not destroy the heavily fortified facility but said the strike had severely damaged it, taking it “off the table.” The person noted that even 12 bunker-busting bombs could not destroy the site." https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/22/world/middleeast/us-iran-nuclear-sites.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/22/world/middlee... ("Assessing the Damage at the Nuclear Sites the U.S. Attacked") https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/22/world/middleeast/iran-fordo-nuclear-damaged-not-destroyed.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/22/world/middleeast/iran-for... ("Iran’s Fordo Site Said to Look Severely Damaged, Not Destroyed") Linked articles also have new satellite imagery from Maxar and Planet.
- amai 1y agoA country like Iran doesn‘t need nuclear energy. It could be like Norway and produce all its energy from renewables/solar, sell its oil and get rich easily. Instead they threaten neighbors, support terrorism and suppress their own people. But if the Israeli/US bombs will convince them to become smarter I really don‘t know.
- kjkjadksj 1y agoSomehow we have the same feelings about Pakistan as we do Iran for most things in geopolitics, but we let Pakistan have a nuclear program. You know, the nation literally harboring Bin Laden.
- qeternity 1y agoIt's almost as if geopolitical environments evolve over time. I don't think anyone today would feel any differently about preventing Pakistan from attaining nuclear weapons. Unfortunately it's very difficult to take nukes away from a country.
- nine_k 1y agoPakistan / US relations are much, much less strained than Iran / US relations. I'd say Pakistan is more of an ally. Iran is clearly an adversary, its current government declaring the US an enemy and literally Satan.
- devoutsalsa 1y ago
- 1024core 1y agoUS is getting sucked into a 1300-year old Shia-Sunni conflict. Personally, I don't understand why Iran had to meddle in Palestine. When Palestine's own neighbors don't give a rat's ass for the suffering of the Palestinians, who are these mullahs sitting 1000 mi away to get involved? After the first Gulf War itself, Iranian rulers should have seen the light and stayed tf out of the US's way (and Israel might just be the 51st state, practically speaking). Just work on improving your economy, educating your kids, building up your infrastructure and turn Iran into one of the world's top economies. But noooo...... those idiots had to get involved in Palestine: supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.... WHY? Just why?!?
- swesour 1y ago[flagged]
- 1024core 1y agoYou do know that there are currently Jews in Iran, including a member of Parliament or two?
- delfinom 1y agoBecause they turned Israel into their Boogeyman the same way the US tries to turn countries like China into theirs or Russia treating Ukraine as their Boogeyman. North Korea treating the US as one. Countries run by dictators need an external enemy to paint as the cause for problems.
- ngruhn 1y agoThey just want to annihilate the non-believers. If the Jews wouldn't have priority, they would probably bully the majority Sunni Palestinians themselves. > Just work on improving your economy, educating your kids, building up your infrastructure Who cares about all this secular nonsense. Killing Jews, that's what god wants you to do. Doesn't matter if you sacrifice a 100x your own muslim brothers in the process. They die as martyrs. That's an express ticket to paradise. I think this makes a theocratic regime even more dangerous than a (more or less) secular autocrat like MBS. These guys ultimately want something that's not in this world. How can make a deal with that?
- hereme888 1y agoTurns out credible Nations have their red lines. - Russia warned NATO for decades to not keep coming closer. - Israel kept warning the world it would directly attack Iran if they kept getting closer to a Nuke. - Trump warned Iran, and followed through on his warnings. - The Iranian regime kept telling the world they wanted the genocide of Jews and attack Americans. The demented Iranian leaders kept feeding hypnotic battle-cries to their military troops about taking down some of the most technologically advanced nations. They just got a reality check.
- GMoromisato 1y agoI'm curious to hear people's predictions for the future: 1. Will Iran escalate, stay-the-course, or yield more in negotiations? Or take some other action I haven't thought of. 2. If Iran escalates, how far will it go? 3. If Iran does a token retaliation without major escalation, but refuses to give up its remaining nuclear program, what happens? Will the Israeli's be satisfied with a 2-4 year delay in Iran's program or will they continue low-grade attacks for the foreseeable future? 4. If Iran yields in negotiations, how far will they go? Will the agree to cease enrichment? If so, will they try to cheat? Or will the US accept some amount of enrichment and end up with a variant of JCPOA? 5. Do you think something else will happen not covered above? 6. What will the situation be in 10 years? 25 years?
- 827a 1y agoIMO #3. They'll moan for a bit. Continue firing rockets. A couple weeks of this; Iran will claim that Iran won, Israel will claim Israel won. There won't be negotiations or concessions. They'll continue trying to develop nukes, but these past two weeks has set them back years. Things go quiet. In ten years we'll do this all over again. The thing people seem to not recognize is: There's basically three countries on the planet capable of actually waging war in the 21st century (US, and Russia/China barely). Every other country is just a proxy for one of these three; their domestic capabilities look more like "throwing a tantrum" than actual war. Israel can't wage war without the US. Iran can't wage war without China/Russia. Currently, the superpower contribution to this fight is just dropping some bombs and diverting a few crates of AK-47s. There's zero capability for long-term war here. But, there's also too much face-saving for negotiations or concessions to happen. So, the fire mostly quenches into embers; like the middle east has always been.
- xdennis 1y agoThat seems ideal, but my fear is that Iran won't stop. It's cheaper to build low precision rockets/drones than the Israeli interceptors, so the war _could_ swing in Iran's favor in the long term. Additionally, Iranians aren't rising up because they don't want to be seen as being controlled by foreigners, but once the war stops, the Iranian regime will have to answer to its citizens. This means the mullahs have no incentive to stop.
- bjourne 1y ago[flagged]
- kjkjadksj 1y agoAnytime Trump says he ‘may or may not’ do something just bet the farm on him doing it. He can’t bluff without telegraphing the whole move.
- shutupnerd0000 1y agoAre we allowing politics on Hacker News now? > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics
- monkeyelite 1y agoThey let it happen when they want it to but the rule remains for any other inconvenient time.
- seshagiric 1y agoI think Netanyahu cleverly played on Trump's ego to get him to strike Iran.
- lhousa 1y agoWhy do people talk like this is all just one person’s decision? There’s an entire government apparatus involved advisors, military leadership, intelligence agencies. It’s not a dictatorship where one guy just snaps his fingers and things happen. I just can't believe this whole thread.
- bentobean 1y ago> It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region. > Israel is a hideous entity in the middle east which will undoubtedly be annihilated. > Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region. > Western countries allow no freedom of expression, which they claim to advocate, with regard to the myth of the massacre of Jews known as the holocaust, and nobody in the West enjoys the freedom of expression to deny it or raise doubts about it. - Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran Those who defend the Iranian regime or suggest that the Israeli government is the greater threat do so to their disgrace. SMH.
- abvdasker 1y agoI think if you're China the smart thing to do would be to immediately send Iran a couple nukes. Would put an end to the conflict pretty much immediately.
- Sammi 1y agoThat would not improve china's situation.
- athrowaway3z 1y agoBe warned the false dichotomy between whether this is a good or bad. It lets proponents use more arguments than they should. The relevant question is: Why was it necessary to bomb Iran right now?
- ajkjk 1y ago"why was it" and "was it" both, though...
- justinbaker84 1y agoI predict a false flag cyber attack on the US that is supposed to whip us into a frenzy for war in Iran.
- didntknowyou 1y agothat's a loaded question, as if everyone had agreed bombing was needed at any stage
- Slava_Propanei 1y ago[dead]
- sterlind 1y agothe IR-6 centrifuges are each the size of scuba tanks, and they double as little storage tanks. you can stuff several centrifuges full of 60% heu in a shed. Iran will have squirreled some away in dozens of sites. to resume enrichment they can connect a much smaller cascade than they needed back when they were at 3.62%. plus they can actually make bombs even with 60% heu, they just have to be fatter and use more energetic explosives. the time to have bombed Iran's nuclear program would have been months ago. or to have, you know, kept the original nuclear deal.
- BerlinKebab 1y ago[flagged]
- BerlinKebab 1y ago[flagged]
- BerlinKebab 1y ago[dead]
- BerlinKebab 1y ago[flagged]
- randomNumber7 1y ago[flagged]
- regularjack 1y agoPlease. The Israeli government is currently engaged in genocide, and has been illegally occupying neighboring lands for decades. They are not the good guys
- randomNumber7 1y agoThen they need to surrender before begging for mercy.
- insane_dreamer 1y agoThe endless irony that the only country that has actually dropped nukes on civilian populations gets to decide whether other countries can have them.
- ckemere 1y agoDuring the period when Israel was rapidly achieving air superiority I was reflecting on the hypothetical- “What if Iran already had a small number - 1 or 2 - poorly tested weapons. When would they decide to use them? Would the Ayatollah order them to destroy Tel Aviv in revenge for killing him?” And now, assuming this sets their program back 10-20 years, what will the answer to that question be? Has anyone seen any analysis on this? It feels like maybe the nuke might be less of a deterrent than threatening to acquire one because using it would put you in a MAD situation where your ballistic missle might malfunction???
- KETpXDDzR 1y agoWhy can't the Iran just buy a nuke from Russia?
- aristofun 1y agoAll those "nice guys" vouching for negotiations — you have absolutely no idea who are we dealing with here. Only street laws and rules apply to them. They see negotiations as weakness, nothing more. History proved many times - you don't negotiate with tyrans and bloody dictators. Period. If you have enough brain to crack leetcode puzzles, why can't you nail that?
- computerthings 1y ago[dead]
- Slava_Propanei 1y ago[dead]
- Slava_Propanei 1y ago[dead]