11 ms·
The point of Iran of enriching U beyond civilian use but not actually going full military grade was leverage. They're the only Shiia super power in the reigion.
by TeeMassive 1y ago
The point of Iran of enriching U beyond civilian use but not actually going full military grade was leverage. They're the only Shiia super power in the reigion. Nobody likes them.
So what can we expect:
* a ground invasion is pretty much out of the question considering the geography or Iran and its neighboring countries.
* Iran destroys every oil production and transport sites in the region (say good by to your election, Republican Party)
* they could fast produce the bomb and test it underground as a final warning
* OR they fail and resort to more desperate measure like a dirty bomb
* OR they fail and there is some sort of regime change
* Or there is some kind of extended war of attrition and it makes the refugee crisis from the past 20 years seem like it was a mere tourist wave.
In any case, this will accentuate the Qaddafi effect and more nations will follow the North Korea option of nuclear "unauthorized" nuclear dissuasion, which is also the case for Israel by the way.
Talking of which, Israel will become politically radioactive in the world. Its support is already negative in nearly all countries and has dropped significantly in the US such as the evangelicals.
- fallingknife 1y agoThey're not going to escalate. They're already getting their ass handed to them by Israel and the last thing they want is to throw down with their other enemies in the region right now. You are correct that there will be no ground invasion, so there is no existential threat to the government. This means they have no incentive to do something stupid that will make anyone change their mind on that invasion.
- handfuloflight 1y ago> so there is no existential threat to the government. Do you think sitting by and doing nothing will not pose an existential threat to the government by way of constituent discontent?
- TeeMassive 1y agoAnd now every regime who feared getting regime-changed will have an interest of developing the bomb. Gaddafi effect is real.
- TeeMassive 1y agoIt's a country of 100M people. They're not just gonna be have their "ass handed to them", just like it didn't happen in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq1, Iraq2, Yemen and Afghanistan. Countries do adapt to bombings, especially when there's a superpower nearby. Also if they "were just about to have the bomb" then they could develop it and use it after. So there is the conflicting position that they are both insane to use it and but both sane to not escalate the conflict. This is where most pro-war arguments fail the basic logic test in the nuclear bomb era.
- abletonlive 1y ago"just like it didn't happen in korea, vietnam, iraq1, iraq2, yemen and afghanistan." that's a fancy retelling of history you got there. MILLIONs died in those wars and less than 100K US troops died. Out of those wars, iraq 1 led to iraq defeat and withdrawal from kuwait. iraq 2 had saddam dragged through the streets and a regime change within 3 weeks, yemen was counterterrorism - there's no regime to topple, in afghanistan the taliban regime was removed for 20 years and only once the troops were withdrawn were they able to crawl back. the current Iranian regime is over.
- TeeMassive 1y agoKIAs ratio is not what determine a war's success
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y agoPossibly, but the cost that regime being over is likely similar to that US paid with war in Afghanistan and Iraq, which, and I am being very, very charitable, was too much blood for too little gain.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoSo do you think the US is going to put the boots on the ground to make that happen? Even Trump isn't that stupid. Or maybe he is. I guess we'll see.
- Cyph0n 1y ago
- yonisto 1y agoThis is a fanatic regime. I will have its people eating grass before giving up on anything.
- dh2022 1y agoFor me the last few days show how militarily-impotent Iran is. Even if they had the nuclear bomb they would not be able to use it against Israel-because right now Iran had no air-defenses and Israel is rumored to have about 100 nuclear warheads. I do not think Iran has any military options. Because it is not liked the Iranian regime does not have any political options either. So I have no idea what will happen-which makes the current situation so interesting to watch.
- inquirerGeneral 1y ago[dead]
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago<< For me the last few days show how militarily-impotent Iran is. I am confused. So it is impotent or the greatest threat in the middle east?
- unethical_ban 1y agoDid dh say it was the greatest threat? All this talk of Iran getting a nuke to hit Israel... doesn't the Iranian government know that it would instantly be destroyed the moment they used a nuclear weapon of any kind? None of this makes sense.
- klipt 1y agoHow much plausible deniability would Iran have if they gave a nuke to Hezbollah who fired it over the border at Tel Aviv? "That was Hezbollah, not us!" You might say using a proxy would be a hopelessly transparent ploy, but Hezbollah has been firing other Iranian supplied weapons at Israel for years and yet many people swear up and down that Iran has "never attacked Israel". So apparently the proxy ploy does work on a lot of people.
- unethical_ban 1y agoComparing the plausible deniability of a nuclear bomb to grenade launchers seems a stretch.
- handfuloflight 1y ago> Its support is already negative in nearly all countries and has dropped significantly in the US such as the evangelicals. You mean they changed their mind and want to postpone the Armageddon now?
- RickJWagner 1y agoEvangelical here. That statement is ignorant.
- handfuloflight 1y agoDo you speak for them all? If you do, please clarify.
- RickJWagner 1y agoI speak for myself, of course. And the people I know in my community. Do you believe all evangelicals believe the same thing, and that we want the end of the world to come immediately? Where would you get such a strange idea? I can assure you it is an ignorant thought.
- handfuloflight 1y agoDid I say they all believed in the same thing? I would not make such an absurd claim when Christianity itself is so fractured. Take it up with the sources listed in these articles: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/30/us-evangelical-christians-israel-hamas-war https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/30/us-evangelical... https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseupr/2025/02/07/the-politics-of-apocalypse-the-rise-of-american-evangelical-zionism/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseupr/2025/02/07/the-politics-of-ap... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/14/half-of-evangelicals-support-israel-because-they-believe-it-is-important-for-fulfilling-end-times-prophecy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/14/h... https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1197956512 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1197956512 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism You are clearly ignorant of what views come under the heading of the evangelicals.
- YZF 1y agoIran and Libya are very different places both in terms of history and current day. I would expect Israel to win the political battle as well. The world likes winners and Israel is going to be a winner here. It winning will also enable it to address some of the issues that are a concern. Without Iran backing up Palestinian militants it is going to be easier for Israel to make some concessions that it couldn't otherwise. You can already see a change of tone in Europe. Especially that Iran is aligned with Russia against Ukraine.
- hajile 1y agoThe term you are looking for is dispensationalist. Most evangelicals seem to be dispensationalists who back Israel because of their apocalyptic eschatology, but not all evangelicals hold that belief. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism