25 ms·

Iran never had the deterrent North Korea had. And by being a theocracy they heavily skewed any threat calculus against themselves. What they were doing, inchin

• alkyon 1y ago
  If 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 ago
    How do you purport to know this?
    • coffeebeqn 1y ago
      The 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 ago
      Fordow 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).
  • birn559 1y ago
    Care to elaborate? A random person doubting things doesn't help other people or bringing a discussion forward.
    • motorest 1y ago
      > Care to elaborate? A random person doubting things doesn't help other people or bringing a discussion forward. I don't know if you noticed, but what you are arguing for is in fact for mindlessly accepting unverified claims and extrapolate them to an optimal outcome. This is the opposite of critical thinking, and goes well beyond wishful thinking. Meanwhile, if you pay attention to OP's point, you'll understand that Iran's nuclear sites have been continuously designed and developed for decades, while subjected to an almost evolutionary pressure, to continue operations even after withstanding direct attacks in scenarios matching exactly Trump's attacks. In the very least, you must assess the effect of those strikes before making any sort of claim. Another factor which it seems you somehow missed was the fact that Russia, another nuclear-capable totalitarian regime, is nowadays heavily dependent on Iran to conduct it's imperialist agenda. If Russia was negotiating handing over nuclear capabilities to North Korea in exchange for supporting it's war effort, do you believe Russia now has no interest to speed up Iran's nuclear weapons programmes?
      • 01100011 1y ago
        Weird that Iran, an oil exporter with huge potential for solar, would expend so much energy on protecting a purportedly civilian nuclear program. I'm sure it's nothing. This isn't really relevant but I'm only making one comment in this post so I'll say it here: young folks don't remember decades of Iranian state sponsored terrorism and do not understand the context of conflict in the middle east.
        • youngtaff 1y ago
          Sooner or later they’re going to run oil of oil and gas
        • oa335 1y ago
          > context of conflict in the middle east. Conflict in the Middle East is entirely rooted in Israeli ethnic cleansing campaigns and western adventurism and protections of Israeli interests. If Iran went away tomorrow, the region would still have massive support for violent movements targeting Israel.
  • adventured 1y ago
    The US, Israel and possibly Britain will install a no-fly zone over Iran. Israel is going to be entirely unwilling to allow Iran to go right back to building again what just got destroyed. This was a once in decades shot for Israel to take against Iran, in its very weakened state (with its proxies out of commission, Syria knocked over, and Russia very preoccupied). They'll attempt the post Gulf War I approach against Iraq (as an invasion will never be on the table). Sanctions and no-fly zone. They'll retain control over Iran's sky and in doing so will be free to bomb as they see fit if Iran attempts to build or re-start something like Fordow. If they attempt to install new air defenses, they'll simply bomb them. Whether that one bombing took care of Fordow is going to be moot, they'll hit it ten more times if that's what it takes, and destroy anything that attempts to move in or out of there. Israel can't maintain a no-fly zone over Iran so the US will be enlisted to do the heavy lifting on that.
    • 400thecat 1y ago
      aiding regime change would be much easier, and would solve all these problems better. At some point in the next few days, the regime will be so weakened that the Iranian people will overthrow it themselves
      • tharmas 1y ago
        Overthrow and get what? Another Libya?
      • adventured 1y ago
        The IRGC is unlikely to let the regime fall so easily. They'll kill a lot of Iranians to stop that from happening. The Iranian people have limited means to fight at present. The no-fly zone and sanctions approach will be used to attempt to strangle the regime over the coming years. It'll take a small miracle for the regime to fall anytime soon, it's not that weak yet (imo) despite what the propaganda is claiming.
        • 400thecat 1y ago
          Israel can bomb the IRGC and Basij bases, police and prisons (release political prisoners). They can collapse the regime, restrict its movement, eliminate chain of command. From there the Iranian people can raise and topple the regime
  • stickfigure 1y ago
    I'm willing to bet that the Americans can build another one of those GBU-57 bombs every some months if they had to.
  • hackerknew 1y ago
    Even if it is only set back by a few months, that is enough time to put pressure on Iran to abandon it altogether. Keep in mind, Israel has full aerial control over Iran and has taken out hundreds of their missile launchers. We can keep pounding the various nuclear facilities and hinder ant chances of rebuilding, making any effort futile.
    • disgruntledphd2 1y ago
      This would be a really risky strategy as it will push the Iranians into a corner with potentially large impacts on the oil price (which will change US public opinion).
      • dotancohen 1y ago
        That sounds to me like the US seriously needs to promote non-petroleum sources of energy. If not for the environment, for their own national sovereignity.
        • dreghgh 1y ago
          The thing is, the United States is self sufficient in petroleum. But domestic prices will go up to reflect the effect on world supply. Arguably the same could happen given widespread use of non petroleum sources of energy. Prices will go up to reflect the marginal cost of hydrocarbon based energy, even if that use is minimal, until the point where the energy network is completely decoupled from those markets. This happened in the United Kingdom after the invasion of Ukraine. More wind was used as gas became more expensive. But the price of electricity from wind also went up.
          • chgs 1y ago
            US could ban fuel exports. Unlikely as rich people would suffer, but they may be placated with bribes.
          • disgruntledphd2 1y ago
            The UK increase was because of how the contracts work but yeah agreed in general. Sustainable energy is good for a bunch of non environmental reasons.
  • KevinCarbonara 1y ago
    I don't know that it can be confirmed, but Iran is claiming that the US tipped them off. This is a fairly standard tactic, and it makes more sense here. This is something that would satisfy both the pro-war crowd and the group that is pro-Israel or anti-Iran, but not necessarily pro-war. We get to show our strength and support for our allies without really committing.
  • herbst 1y ago
    > No increase in radiation levels have been detected, the UN's nuclear watchdog says I guess means no. However I have no idea what they would say if they did. "Yes we poisoned the whole area for generations to come, success!"
• simonh 1y ago
  It's not so much them being a theocracy IMHO. It's that they believe they have a religious duty to destroy the state of Israel. Put those Israeli shoes on. There's a state armed with ballistic missiles in easy range of you, they have the facilities necessary to enrich weapons grade Uranium, recently acquired more advanced centrifuges, they have the uranium already enriched far beyond what's necessary for civilian use, they have far more of it than they credibly need for such civilian use, and they believe god has ordered them to destroy you. How well would you sleep at night?
  • tharmas 1y ago
    Israel has nukes, so why would they be afraid of Iran?
    • dismalaf 1y ago
      [flagged]
      • lostlogin 1y ago
        Would they? How would they deliver it? If they were caught trying to do it, what would happen? Why is an Iranian weapon somehow different do one held by any other country? Countries with them usually don’t use them, and the one that has is attacking Iran.
    • snapetom 1y ago
      [flagged]
      • throw310822 1y ago
        I don't think you realise how ignorant and racist is this idea that an entire religion and country of 90 million doesn't behave like normal human beings.
        • raffraffraff 1y ago
• jandrewrogers 1y ago
  North Korea is a Chinese client state. As a general rule, client states are treated as extensions of the countries that control them. Iran is not a client state.
  • yard2010 1y ago
    Iran is more like a server state, it serves terror and death through their proxies. It's like a vpn of destruction.
    • dudefeliciano 1y ago
      then what is the US pray tell? The cloudflare of killing?
      • 20after4 1y ago
        That's a fairly apt comparison actually.
        • tough 1y ago
          meh, more like the AWS
  • choonway 1y ago
    NK is more of a russian client state, not chinese.
• seydor 1y ago
  > by having a theocracy they Religion is just another ideology, and it s not like Islam has a specific position about nuclear energy
  • ebb_earl_co 1y ago
    In my view, religion is the set of ideologies that plays the children’s game of one-upping each other’s numbers until one of the children says “infinity” and sticks fingers in ears, sayin the game is over. By this I mean the religious ideological move is eternal punishment for what they deem unsatisfactory or eternal bliss for compliance, no other branch. Other ideologies invoke similar (infinite growth in capitalism, e.g.) but those are hyperbole for proselytization. An ideology that attempts to persuade with either the most egregious stick possible or the most delicious carrot possible makes religion the least palatable of ideologies.
  • hajile 1y ago
    Iran's current situation is because their dictator DOES have a position about nuclear energy and nukes. Energy is fine, but nukes are haram. This is THE reason they haven't built any nukes the last 40+ years. Changing a religious decree of that nature requires a very big excuse which has never existed. Israel and the US threatening Iran's existence and threatening to kill millions of Muslims is the ONE thing I can think of that would allow Khamenei an "out" to actually build a nuke.
• recroad 1y ago
  Thank you, great liberator. Please bomb us more to save our lives.
  • hackerknew 1y ago
    You’d be surprised, but the people of Iran have been waiting for this moment for years. There are 80 million people who want the end of the regime. Whether this fulfills that goal, we will see, but anything that weakens the regime is good for the Iranian people.
    • Hikikomori 1y ago
      US didn't like it the last time the Iranian people got their regime change.
    • recroad 1y ago
      You hear and read about it, but it’s still surreal to see the effects of propaganda in real life. I’m glad I’m old enough to have seen this show before live.
    • gattilorenz 1y ago
      Even those who want a regime change tend to dislike getting bombs on their heads. And if anything, the last 20 years taught us that revolutions imposed from the outside never work
      • hackerknew 1y ago
        Not on their heads. On the weapons and heads of the regime. The regime is not the Iranian people.
        • const_cast 1y ago
          If this goes to war, it will be their heads. We cannot be so naive to assume the US does not want civilian bloodshed. We love that, that's, like, our favorite thing about war. This is why US war-mongering is bad and we need to stop doing it. The US is absolutely ruthless. After all, we're the only country that has actually used nukes - and we did it on civilians.
• epolanski 1y ago
  > Iran never had the deterrent North Korea had. I feel very conflicted about what's happening. On one side it is clear that no country should give up their WMD projects. You lack that deterrent you get attacked, as simple as that. Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked. > What happened today likely saved millions of Iranian lives. That's speculation. Since you name NK that's a clear example of a country having nuclear deterrent actually saving the region from a conflict.
  • davedx 1y ago
    Don’t forget Ukraine - gave up their nukes and look what happened
    • lIl-IIIl 1y ago
      They never really had them. They were in Ukraine but Moscow had control.
      • cromka 1y ago
        Then why would they need a full Budapest memorandum with co-signees if Moscow could just take them back? This sounds ridiculous.
        • dlahoda 1y ago
          because rockets to be transported to russkies back. if they would not sign, some bad things could happened along the way.
        • varjag 1y ago
          It was indeed because there was no legal foundation for Russian ownership of all Soviet nuclear assets, no matter how every other nuclear power wanted it at the time.
          • epolanski 1y ago
• FilosofumRex 1y ago
  Israel defines itself as a "jewish" state, and at least 50% of members of current governing parties in parliament are from religious parties and zionist parties. In what sense Israel is not a theocracy.
  • 9dev 1y ago
    Maybe the fact that every single one of these representatives has been appointed in a fair democratic vote?
    • tsimionescu 1y ago
      Iran became a theocracy through a popular uprising, too. Democracy and theocracy are quite compatible, as long as the people are religious enough.
      • 9dev 1y ago
        That would mean the USA are a theocracy too, given most senators are Christian. That doesn’t make too much sense. Theocracy is a form of government in which religious leaders rule in the name of a deity, and religious law is the basis for all legal and political decisions.
        • rf15 1y ago
          m8 they literally swear on the bible /s
        • otikik 1y ago
          You… don’t see it?
        • deleted 1y ago
          [deleted]
        • tsimionescu 1y ago
          The USA is not a theocracy, though. The majority-Christian senators are not generally enacting theocratic laws and regulations (though there are some tendencies and influences, as seen with the recent repeal of Roe v Wade, for example). However, Israel does have highly theocratic tendencies. Their constitution places Jewish identity on the same level as their democratic statute. They have even more religious influence on public life than the USA does (which is already somewhat high by European standards), with businesses in many cities being boycotted into respecting the Sabbath and other religious holidays (not selling risen bread during Passover, making elevators stop automatically on every floor during days of rest, observing kosher restrictions on food etc). Many of their foreign policy decisions are explicitly influenced by religious tenets, such as believing they were gifted the "land of Israel" by their god (which includes modern day Israel, the Occupied Territories, and several parts of modern day Syria, Lebanon, and others). They're nowhere near the level of religous rule and/or fanaticism as Saudi Arabia, but they have much more religious influence and control of public life then a modern European/US-style democracy.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• dreghgh 1y ago
  > This is probably what happens when your government isn't very competent and you don't have mathematicians doing game theoretic simulations for you? Religious government or not, Iran has plenty of engineers, statisticians, scientists and intelligence analysts working for their foreign policy and war effort. Your underestimating this betrays prejudice.
  • vixen99 1y ago
    As you say 'probably. How do you know no simulations have been explored? Or is this an assumption that events somehow prove that suggestion? Some might take issue with that.
  • Gud 1y ago
    But clearly all these smart people are not involved in the decision making, considering how Iran’s foreign policy has looked like, exactly how parent described.
    • dreghgh 1y ago
      Compare military spending by Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt and the United States (only Middle East related) with Iranian military spending, over the four decades of Iran's shadow wars with these countries and isolation by much of the rest of the world. And yet Iranian proxies have repeatedly challenged these powers across the Middle East, in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Sinai, etc. And a lot of Iran's actions have broad support in many other Middle Eastern countries, including strong US allies, those where there are no natural ethnic, religious or linguistic ties to Iran, and where there is prosperity based on peace and the American world order. Whatever else the Iranian govt are, they are not foreign policy under-hitters or flawed tacticians blinded by dogmatism.
      • reissbaker 1y ago
        On the contrary: at this point all of that spending appears to have been a waste. Hezbollah neutralized, Syria regime-changed, Gaza in tatters, and now they've lost their nuclear program. Imagine if they'd spent the money on education, or developing their economy. They could easily have reconciled with the U.S. if they stopped chanting "Death to America" and done something productive with their time and money. This was the inevitable result of their plans, and easily predictable.
• dandanua 1y ago
  "In God we trust"
  • adastra22 1y ago
    A cheap shot ignorant of the history and context of that phrase.
• littlestymaar 1y ago
  > What they were doing, inching towards nukes, was a horrible move. In their position, you either sprint covertly and not play at all. You're misunderstanding their position and that's why it seems idiotic to you: they stopped working on building nukes back in 2003, after that date all they did was using the ability to get nukes as a negotiation leverage, that's how they got JPCoA in 2015 and since the US unilaterally left it in 2018 and the rest of the Western world failed to keep it working (that would have required courage to anger the US), Iran was seeking to force a new deal by raising the bar a bit: they announced back in 2022 that they'd enrich up to 60% in order to increase their negotiation leverage, but they didn't go past that stage nor did they work on the militarization tech in the meantime, because they weren't aiming to get the bomb at all.
• dlahoda 1y ago
  it took nk 40+ years to get nukes. is this definion of inching? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_m... also you say nk uses nukes as deterrent, deterrent from whom? if they deterred any, they were fine deterring it for 40+ years without.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• belter 1y ago
  > What happened today likely saved millions of Iranian lives. Today strike on Iran nuclear sites endangers millions of American and Israeli lives. It teaches Tehran the same lesson North Korea learned long ago. That only a nuclear deterrent secures a regime survival. To believe Iran will absorb this blow without striking back is not merely naive, it is dangerously delusional. It is also clear any Iranian nuclear critical assets were moved to alternative secret sites long before the strikes, as satellite photos show: "Satellite images show activity at Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility before U.S. air strikes" - https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/22/satellite-images-show-activity-at-irans-fordo-before-us-air-strikes.html https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/22/satellite-images-show-activi...
• 1oooqooq 1y ago
  or, you know, they just want power generators, like they claimed for decades now and all the UN auditors confirmed every time?
• ngcazz 1y ago
  They were not inching towards nukes though, were they? And why is the threat calculus here their fault when the Israelis attacked Iran unprovoked? This top-voted comment is consent-manufacturing tripe.
  • mcv 1y ago
    Israel's attack wasn't entirely unprovoked; Iran frequently calls for attacks on Israel, wiping them from the face of the earth, and funding organizations that attack Israel. The fear that they might use nuclear weapons offensively against Israel is very real. Note that I'm not a fan of Israel, condemn their genocide in Gaza, and consider Netanyahu a war criminal. I'm also not a fan of this attack on Iran and prefer a peaceful and democratic overthrow of that regime. But calling the attack unprovoked is not entirely correct; Iran spends a lot of time provoking Israel.
    • ngcazz 1y ago
      If you are familiar with how Israel came to be founded, and how Iran became an Islamic republic, you'll see how that is a naive narrative. For one, Balfour's illegal concession of Palestine to the Israelis had the clear strategic purpose of keeping pan-Arabism at bay. The ensuing establishment of Israel - by the UNSCOP, in contravention of international law - had the side effect of turbocharging settler colonialist violence (1948 and ongoing) and expansionism (e.g. 1967 annexations). That was the background to the 1953 CIA coup, and the eventual Islamic revolution in 1979. Sure, it's not the liberal democratic outcome Iranians would've liked, but it reclaimed sovereignty lost, and they are aware of the historic role of Israel and their strategic and moral position in relation to it, regardless of their regime. Bottom line, if we look closely at who really is threatening whom, the reactions of the Iranians are probably quite understandable
      • mcv 1y ago
        As far as I'm aware, the background of the 1953 coup was oil. The democratic government of Iran want to nationalize the oil industry, and western oil companies did like that. On top of that, Iran was willing to do business with the USSR. That's why US and UK secret services conspired with the ayatollahs to overthrow the democratic government and replace it with the shah. No shit the result of 1979 is not what the Iranians wanted; there have been frequent democratic uprisings since then. Most Iranians didn't really care one way or the other about Israel, although you can't really blame them for not liking the US. And Israel has never really had an issue with Iran. But it's the ayatollahs who have been extremely hostile towards Israel, and have spent decades funding Hezbollah attacks against Israel. I'm not going to defend Israel; they've committed plenty of crimes. And war crimes. But almost entirely against the Palestinians, not against Iran. The Middle East is complex, and there's no simply good vs evil there, but the ayatollahs are definitely not on the side of good.
• elif 1y ago
  All the intelligence says they weren't building nukes, but all the sudden we are to believe the narrative provided by a prolific liar who can't even articulate what it is that he wants Iran to do? Israel started bombing Iran and they returned fire. Is trump asking the largest economic and military power in the region to sit by idle as Israel sends missiles and bombs daily? He won't clarify even when asked directly. I don't think we have any reason to believe his narrative if he can't even explain it himself. I would also like to add that Trump himself is the one who removed IAEA inspectors from routine inspections of Iran, so occams razor would suggest this ambiguity is by design.
  • 15155 1y ago
    > All the intelligence says they weren't building nukes > IAEA inspectors What are some good reasons for producing >60% HEU?
    • alan-crowe 1y ago
      Nuclear powered ships and submarines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion The attraction is that high enrichment permits a smaller reactor and less frequent refuelling. US submarines go over 96% enrichment. Bunker fuel is in the news. Cheap oil for marine diesel engines is both polluting in the traditional sulfur etc sense and in the modern CO2 global warming sense. There are occasional attempts at wind powered sailing ships, or at least sail assisted ships, to reduce the burning of bunker fuel. Nuclear power for shipping is currently out of fashion, but is a legitimate topic for research.
      • 15155 1y ago
        What are some things you might use a nuclear submarine for?
• jonyt 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • diggan 1y ago
    > Dictators are not the good the good guys, for their people or their neighbors. Trying to find a clear line of "good vs evil guys" is bound to led you down a bad path. Is how Iran treat people very shitty and outright evil? Yes. Does that mean other countries should feel OK with invading them to "liberate" them? Probably no and feels like a very dangerous line of thinking that could be used to invade basically any country, including the US itself. I don't think many people are arguing that Iran is some beacon of democracy and treating their people right, but regardless of that, we tend to favor sovereignty of nations for a good reason, yet it seems like some countries still struggle with accepting this.
    • jonyt 1y ago
      Iran isn't being attacked because it's not nice to its own people (which is a shame really, all dictators and theocrats should worry for their lives). It's being attacked because it has ballistic missiles, a nuclear weapons program, a giant sign in the middle of Tehran counting down the existence of Israel and its leaders have repeatedly called for Israel's destruction. So weapon, opportunity and motive. It's of course free to work towards the destruction of Israel but then it's hardly fair to complain that Israel may try to preempt that.
      • diggan 1y ago
        > It's being attacked because it has ballistic missiles, a nuclear weapons program, a giant sign in the middle of Tehran counting down the existence of Israel and its leaders have repeatedly called for Israel's destruction Switch "Israel" with "Iran" and you have basically the same thing, but seemingly waging war against Israel would never be an option, would it? Because we accept the country's own sovereignty, as we should do with all countries.
• heresie-dabord 1y ago
  With all due respect, please reconsider these points: > This is probably what happens when your government isn't very competent Well now we should all be terrified. > Theocracy with nukes screams nuke them first You should reflect on the religious elements prominently at play within these belligerent states. I deplore kakistocracy of any stripe, but it is obvious that dictatorships and dictatorship-curious regimes of any sort are an existential threat.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• 1776smithadam 1y ago
  > you don't have mathematicians doing game theoretic simulations for you? So you're saying we're here because America has mathematicians doing game theoretic simulations and this is the best move?
• mathgradthrow 1y ago
  they were sprinting covertly. Thats why this happened.
• bjourne 1y ago
  > What they were doing, inching towards nukes, was a horrible move. Why are you swallowing the propaganda you've been spoon-fed? "Gabbard: Iran is not currently developing nuclear weapons" https://jewishinsider.com/2025/03/gabbard-iran-is-not-currently-developing-nuclear-weapons/ https://jewishinsider.com/2025/03/gabbard-iran-is-not-curren...