10 ms·

> Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked. This is the key. People talk some crazy stories about Iran being a theocratic s

> Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked. This is the key. People talk some crazy stories about Iran being a theocratic state whose life mission is destroying Israel but the fact is they don't want to end up like Libya, Syria or any other country Israel considers a threat. And a reminder - Israel has illegals WMDs, using technology and nuclear material stolen from the US. So thinking Iran will simply nuke Israel because it has that capability is silly - it would mean mutual destruction.

dlahoda 1y ago
israel is way smaller and easier to bomb. why would not iran gov sacrifice few million of its people to kill whole israel?
- spwa4 1y ago
  Because Iran is a developed country and the Iranian population actually has a future if they take their government back from the clerics? Hell, in the next 30 or so years oil will disappear from the middle east, and Iran is just about the only country that has a realistic shot at still having an economy after that.
  - _zagj 1y ago
    > Because Iran is a developed country and the Iranian population actually has a future if they take their government back from the clerics They're talking about the current regime, from which it isn't clear the population will ever successfully take back their country.
  - HPsquared 1y ago
    Libya was pretty developed with an educated population, decent economy etc too, more developed then Iran I'd say.. look how that turned out. State collapse is no joke.
    - ALLTaken 1y ago
      there are private banks and operations similar to BlackWater, like Osherbrand and many others that steal, murder and take capital from the public by re-enforcing external threats and then providing "rescue" via their private fleet to extract the corrupt politicians for 30% to 70% commissions and murder away anyone hindering them. Collapse my ass, it's foreign influence and internal corruption. Like always. Be neutral and objective, but America, Ukraine and Israel are currently the most agresively operating forces salivating over WW3. Yes, Russia is also quite brutal, but it's not going to profit from WW3 on the stock market! Who are the PROFITEERS of this? How can WE fight this war mongering? Do we need to get active on the Battlefield? Do we need to sabotage Sattelite Networks, disarm financial incentives etc. etc. to combat those who want a WW3? Only billionaires are going to become richer from a war. Everyone else will eat radioactive food and their DNA will be wiped out forever from the human gene pool. Seem like an Eugenic goal
      - libertine 1y ago
        Ukraine is being invaded in a genocidal war to try to annex them and delete them from the map, by Russia. Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum with Ukraine for them to surrender their nukes. All while Russia is threatning with nuclear destruction of Ukraine and Western countries. So, how the hell is Ukraine salivating over WW3 and Russia isn't LMAO
        ALLTaken 1y ago
        aggressive and loaded comment you made here. Actions provoking WW3 are as I commented. You've not made a valid counter argument and have only chose PARTISANSHIP. Which I have not. I suggest etiquette and neutral speech before spitting hate in internet forums.
        libertine 1y ago
        > aggressive and loaded comment you made here. I disagree, but in light of your previous comment, it doesn't shock me. > Actions provoking WW3 are as I commented. You're wrong, they're not. You have pretty clearly chosen PARTISANSHIP by stating a country being invaded and fighting for their lives and sovereignty as the ones salivating for WW3. It's a remarkable backward-thinking exercise. Russia is clearly: - violating International Law, the UN Charter, and many other agreements and memoranda; - all while threatening nuclear annihilation of Ukraine, UK, USA and other European countries; - Attacking and destroying third countries' civilian infrastructures; Among other atrocities and crimes. But somehow, through magical thinking, you deem them as the victims here who have nothing to gain from this. You are not OK with stock market gains, but you're OK with Russia stealing Ukrainian natural resources, their population, including kidnapped children? Let me ask you this: according to your logic, were Hitler and Stalin the victims, and was Poland salivating for starting WW2?
  - rusk 1y ago
    > if they take their government back from the clerics? They took back their government and they “gave” it to the clerics back in C20 The Iranians by and large have the state they want. Strong parallel with Irish history where independence brought about a theocratic Junta. That only went away with deeper integration into the European economy.
    - tech2 1y ago
      Are we forgetting the pushback against nationalisation of their oil industry, operations involving both CIA and MI6, the propaganda campaign to get rid of their elected president, and other such fun? It's not like the west didn't have some rather significant involvement and incentive here. They have what they have because the west (as is common) messed with another nation.
      - spwa4 1y ago
        [flagged]
        tech2 1y ago
        Maybe we're missing one another here but it appears you're arguing for me. Khomeini is in place _because_ of western influence/involvement, if it weren't for operation Ajax/Boot (depending on whether we're talking CIA or MI-6 naming) and the various aspects of the associated propaganda then Mosaddegh may have remained in power (I say maybe because it was quite unstable times in the early 50s Iran) and Khomeini may never have gained power.
FrozenSynapse 1y ago
> it would mean mutual destruction. some religious lunatics would deem that worthy
- dlahoda 1y ago
  it will not be mutual. look at map and size of countries. so it even no need to be lunatic to act some nukes.
- m000 1y ago
  > some religious lunatics would deem that worthy That would be primarily Evangelical Zionists, seeking to hasten the end of days.
  - samjones33 1y ago
    Evangelical Zionists who fund extremist Jews ... Film, Til Kingdom Come -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Til_Kingdom_Come_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Til_Kingdom_Come_(film)
- foolserrandboy 1y ago
  [dead]
dlahoda 1y ago
afaik as i recall gov of iran says israel is little satan and says it goal to kill it. is it crazy, sure. is it crazy story to say,no. it seems real.
- margorczynski 1y ago
  The same shit NK says about SK and the USA but still I don't see nukes flying. You shouldn't mistake propaganda for the masses with the leadership being crazy fanatics.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    Indeed, the only place I see that line being blurred today is in the US.
- rusk 1y ago
  > gov of iran says israel is little satan A pretty popular opinion these days
  - breppp 1y ago
    only means that their long game plan of sacrificing the palestinians for a chance at some regional/international influence is working
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - ta1243 1y ago
      With Israel playing right into it
      - breppp 1y ago
        probably the same could be said about iran now
  - 1y ago
elcritch 1y ago
> end up like Libya, Syria or any other country Israel considers a threat. You imply here that those countries woes are primarily due to Israel. They are not. Syria was embroiled and toppled by Islamic Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham backed by Turkey. Libya was due to civil war. Several of these conflicts were funded by Iran as well. You can go down the list. Please study at least some basics on the region. > So thinking Iran will simply nuke Israel because it has that capability is silly - it would mean mutual destruction. One would hope, but if Allah is protecting them why would they need to fear retaliation? Theocracies can be unpredictable. Also they could provide dirty bombs to their proxies in the region.
- roenxi 1y ago
  > You imply here that those countries woes are primarily due to Israel. They are not. The comment didn't suggest that exactly. > One would hope, but if Allah is protecting them why would they need to fear retaliation? Israel just launched a perfidious pre-emptive defence by assassinating a lot of their top military leadership. They've probably figured out retaliation is a possibility here - if this is Israel's defence when they aren't even being threatened, imagine what they will do in their defence when the Iranians actually do something directly! Even if the Iranians are legitimately stupid at some level the campaign of missile strikes must have registered that they are vulnerable to missiles.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    "they [Israel] aren't even being threatened" Are you even arguing in good faith? Over the years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op9EFTPQhw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op9EFTPQhw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulXulltxXZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulXulltxXZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V21yoWN_U3w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V21yoWN_U3w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLDjGdJC0Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLDjGdJC0Q
    - roenxi 1y ago
      One of those videos is literally titled "Iran's Ahmadinejad Keeps Up Bluster Against Israel" and another is about treaty negotiations. If countries are going to launch a military response every time a leadership figure starts blustering or negotiations don't go well we're going to be in a lot of wars. Bluster isn't a threat that the military are going to respond to. Imagine I used the word "credible" above if you want.
echoangle 1y ago
> And a reminder - Israel has illegals WMDs, using technology and nuclear material stolen from the US. By what means are the israeli nukes (I assume thats whats meant by WMDs?) illegal? They didn't sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and I don't think spying and stealing is illegal between countries under international law.
- handfuloflight 1y ago
  By the moral law of not being a hypocrite, for one.
epolanski 1y ago
When I said I was conflicted I meant that on one side it seems like a bad idea to give up WMDs for these countries, but it's also a bad idea for them to have them. In Iran's case this is further compounded by their consistent anti Israeli PR and anti-Israeli militias funding.
rajup 1y ago
> So thinking Iran will simply nuke Israel because it has that capability is silly - it would mean mutual destruction. 100%. The Iranian regime is not stupid. The "existential threat" bs being peddled by a certain government is simply to give cover to illegal attacks on a sovereign nation. This is "WMDs in Iraq" all over again.
- mu53 1y ago
  I think they are stupid for broadcasting the program and threatening Israel with it. Believe people when they tell you what they are going to do. Even if Iran wouldn’t use it if they had it, threatening to use it shifts the probability for them using it. Khomeini isn’t on Kim jong un’s level
- scotty79 1y ago
  > 100%. The Iranian regime is not stupid. I'm not sure how can you say that, now that they are dead, completely due to how they positioned themselves on the regional and global landscape.
- dekelpilli 1y ago
  This was Israel's thinking with Hamas - they're deterred, they're comfortable and in charge and they wouldn't do anything to jeopardise that, etc. Israel's thinking was wrong, and they've learned to believe their enemies when they say they want to destroy Israel. There isn't a country in the world that would allow their enemies, who have repeatedly stated that said country's demise is a key goal of theirs, to develop nukes if they have with the capability to stop it.
  - hotmeals 1y ago
    >[Hamas] they're deterred, they're comfortable and in charge That's just being deluded, being a in open air prison is different from being a sovereign nation.
- mattmaroon 1y ago
  They’re not stupid, the believe in an ideology that glorifies martyrs. If you actually believe in martyrdom nuking Israel is the sensible thing to do even knowing you’ll get it right back.
ashoeafoot 1y ago
[flagged]
solumunus 1y ago
Silly! Such flippant language. Yes, it would be silly. Jihadists do “silly” things all the time. Their goals are “silly”.
jeswin 1y ago
> illegal WMD Who has "legal" WMDs - the P5? Israel is a non-signatory to NPT, meaning their WMDs are as legal as anyone else's.
mattmaroon 1y ago
It can be both. You're creating a false dichotomy. https://www.bu.edu/history/files/2015/04/Khalaji-Apocalyptic-Politics-On-the-Rationality-of-Iranian-Policy.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email https://www.bu.edu/history/files/2015/04/Khalaji-Apocalyptic... Mutual destruction makes sense when you're a death cult and the enemy is evil. Iran nuking Israel knowing full well they will get nuked back IS rational if your belief is that Allah will reward you for it in the afterlife and they do sincerly believe that. You should read books published by reformed Islamists. Radical by Maajid Nawaz is a good one. They profess to believe (and they are sincere) that they will be rewarded for dying killing Israelis. There's a reason that if I tell you a story about a suicide bomber blowing up a public square in political protest you do not have to wonder what religion they are. It's not because all Muslims are insane, they aren't, it's because some of them have beliefs that make that action rational. (For example, see how Hamas will not surrender even when offered free passage out of Gaza. They'd rather Israel grind their way through the Palestinian population bomb by bomb because they think every Palestinian killed goes to heaven. If they were rational as we understand the world, they'd realize their plight is hopeless and the only thing they ensure by staying is civillian deaths.)
- samjones33 1y ago
  >(For example, see how Hamas will not surrender Yup. Hamas will fight to the last Palestinian. They could have ended the Gaza war a year ago (or more). All they have to say is: "Here are the hostages. Here are our weapons. We are now shoemakers." Why don't they do this? Because they would rather fight to the last Palestinian child. Hamas has agency. They could end war any time since October 8, 2023.
  - dreghgh 1y ago
    The PLO pulled out of Beirut in the early 1980s after being given guarantees from the international community that the remaining Palestinian population, unarmed civilians, would be protected both from Lebanese Christians and Israeli forces. Then Israeli forces colluded with Christian militias to massacre Palestinians in their camps. Hamas was never going to disarm and hand back the hostages based on "Trust me, bro".

dlahoda 1y ago

israel is way smaller and easier to bomb. why would not iran gov sacrifice few million of its people to kill whole israel?

spwa4 1y ago
Because Iran is a developed country and the Iranian population actually has a future if they take their government back from the clerics? Hell, in the next 30 or so years oil will disappear from the middle east, and Iran is just about the only country that has a realistic shot at still having an economy after that.
- _zagj 1y ago
  > Because Iran is a developed country and the Iranian population actually has a future if they take their government back from the clerics They're talking about the current regime, from which it isn't clear the population will ever successfully take back their country.
- HPsquared 1y ago
  Libya was pretty developed with an educated population, decent economy etc too, more developed then Iran I'd say.. look how that turned out. State collapse is no joke.
  - ALLTaken 1y ago
    there are private banks and operations similar to BlackWater, like Osherbrand and many others that steal, murder and take capital from the public by re-enforcing external threats and then providing "rescue" via their private fleet to extract the corrupt politicians for 30% to 70% commissions and murder away anyone hindering them. Collapse my ass, it's foreign influence and internal corruption. Like always. Be neutral and objective, but America, Ukraine and Israel are currently the most agresively operating forces salivating over WW3. Yes, Russia is also quite brutal, but it's not going to profit from WW3 on the stock market! Who are the PROFITEERS of this? How can WE fight this war mongering? Do we need to get active on the Battlefield? Do we need to sabotage Sattelite Networks, disarm financial incentives etc. etc. to combat those who want a WW3? Only billionaires are going to become richer from a war. Everyone else will eat radioactive food and their DNA will be wiped out forever from the human gene pool. Seem like an Eugenic goal
    - libertine 1y ago
      Ukraine is being invaded in a genocidal war to try to annex them and delete them from the map, by Russia. Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum with Ukraine for them to surrender their nukes. All while Russia is threatning with nuclear destruction of Ukraine and Western countries. So, how the hell is Ukraine salivating over WW3 and Russia isn't LMAO
      - ALLTaken 1y ago
        aggressive and loaded comment you made here. Actions provoking WW3 are as I commented. You've not made a valid counter argument and have only chose PARTISANSHIP. Which I have not. I suggest etiquette and neutral speech before spitting hate in internet forums.
        libertine 1y ago
        > aggressive and loaded comment you made here. I disagree, but in light of your previous comment, it doesn't shock me. > Actions provoking WW3 are as I commented. You're wrong, they're not. You have pretty clearly chosen PARTISANSHIP by stating a country being invaded and fighting for their lives and sovereignty as the ones salivating for WW3. It's a remarkable backward-thinking exercise. Russia is clearly: - violating International Law, the UN Charter, and many other agreements and memoranda; - all while threatening nuclear annihilation of Ukraine, UK, USA and other European countries; - Attacking and destroying third countries' civilian infrastructures; Among other atrocities and crimes. But somehow, through magical thinking, you deem them as the victims here who have nothing to gain from this. You are not OK with stock market gains, but you're OK with Russia stealing Ukrainian natural resources, their population, including kidnapped children? Let me ask you this: according to your logic, were Hitler and Stalin the victims, and was Poland salivating for starting WW2?
- rusk 1y ago
  > if they take their government back from the clerics? They took back their government and they “gave” it to the clerics back in C20 The Iranians by and large have the state they want. Strong parallel with Irish history where independence brought about a theocratic Junta. That only went away with deeper integration into the European economy.
  - tech2 1y ago
    Are we forgetting the pushback against nationalisation of their oil industry, operations involving both CIA and MI6, the propaganda campaign to get rid of their elected president, and other such fun? It's not like the west didn't have some rather significant involvement and incentive here. They have what they have because the west (as is common) messed with another nation.
    - spwa4 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - tech2 1y ago
        Maybe we're missing one another here but it appears you're arguing for me. Khomeini is in place _because_ of western influence/involvement, if it weren't for operation Ajax/Boot (depending on whether we're talking CIA or MI-6 naming) and the various aspects of the associated propaganda then Mosaddegh may have remained in power (I say maybe because it was quite unstable times in the early 50s Iran) and Khomeini may never have gained power.

FrozenSynapse 1y ago

> it would mean mutual destruction. some religious lunatics would deem that worthy

dlahoda 1y ago
it will not be mutual. look at map and size of countries. so it even no need to be lunatic to act some nukes.
m000 1y ago
> some religious lunatics would deem that worthy That would be primarily Evangelical Zionists, seeking to hasten the end of days.
- samjones33 1y ago
  Evangelical Zionists who fund extremist Jews ... Film, Til Kingdom Come -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Til_Kingdom_Come_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Til_Kingdom_Come_(film)
foolserrandboy 1y ago
[dead]

dlahoda 1y ago

afaik as i recall gov of iran says israel is little satan and says it goal to kill it. is it crazy, sure. is it crazy story to say,no. it seems real.

margorczynski 1y ago
The same shit NK says about SK and the USA but still I don't see nukes flying. You shouldn't mistake propaganda for the masses with the leadership being crazy fanatics.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  Indeed, the only place I see that line being blurred today is in the US.
rusk 1y ago
> gov of iran says israel is little satan A pretty popular opinion these days
- breppp 1y ago
  only means that their long game plan of sacrificing the palestinians for a chance at some regional/international influence is working
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - ta1243 1y ago
    With Israel playing right into it
    - breppp 1y ago
      probably the same could be said about iran now
- 1y ago

elcritch 1y ago

> end up like Libya, Syria or any other country Israel considers a threat. You imply here that those countries woes are primarily due to Israel. They are not. Syria was embroiled and toppled by Islamic Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham backed by Turkey. Libya was due to civil war. Several of these conflicts were funded by Iran as well. You can go down the list. Please study at least some basics on the region. > So thinking Iran will simply nuke Israel because it has that capability is silly - it would mean mutual destruction. One would hope, but if Allah is protecting them why would they need to fear retaliation? Theocracies can be unpredictable. Also they could provide dirty bombs to their proxies in the region.

roenxi 1y ago
> You imply here that those countries woes are primarily due to Israel. They are not. The comment didn't suggest that exactly. > One would hope, but if Allah is protecting them why would they need to fear retaliation? Israel just launched a perfidious pre-emptive defence by assassinating a lot of their top military leadership. They've probably figured out retaliation is a possibility here - if this is Israel's defence when they aren't even being threatened, imagine what they will do in their defence when the Iranians actually do something directly! Even if the Iranians are legitimately stupid at some level the campaign of missile strikes must have registered that they are vulnerable to missiles.
- spwa4 1y ago
  "they [Israel] aren't even being threatened" Are you even arguing in good faith? Over the years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op9EFTPQhw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op9EFTPQhw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulXulltxXZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulXulltxXZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V21yoWN_U3w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V21yoWN_U3w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLDjGdJC0Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLDjGdJC0Q
  - roenxi 1y ago
    One of those videos is literally titled "Iran's Ahmadinejad Keeps Up Bluster Against Israel" and another is about treaty negotiations. If countries are going to launch a military response every time a leadership figure starts blustering or negotiations don't go well we're going to be in a lot of wars. Bluster isn't a threat that the military are going to respond to. Imagine I used the word "credible" above if you want.

echoangle 1y ago

> And a reminder - Israel has illegals WMDs, using technology and nuclear material stolen from the US. By what means are the israeli nukes (I assume thats whats meant by WMDs?) illegal? They didn't sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and I don't think spying and stealing is illegal between countries under international law.

handfuloflight 1y ago
By the moral law of not being a hypocrite, for one.

epolanski 1y ago

When I said I was conflicted I meant that on one side it seems like a bad idea to give up WMDs for these countries, but it's also a bad idea for them to have them. In Iran's case this is further compounded by their consistent anti Israeli PR and anti-Israeli militias funding.

rajup 1y ago

> So thinking Iran will simply nuke Israel because it has that capability is silly - it would mean mutual destruction. 100%. The Iranian regime is not stupid. The "existential threat" bs being peddled by a certain government is simply to give cover to illegal attacks on a sovereign nation. This is "WMDs in Iraq" all over again.

mu53 1y ago
I think they are stupid for broadcasting the program and threatening Israel with it. Believe people when they tell you what they are going to do. Even if Iran wouldn’t use it if they had it, threatening to use it shifts the probability for them using it. Khomeini isn’t on Kim jong un’s level
scotty79 1y ago
> 100%. The Iranian regime is not stupid. I'm not sure how can you say that, now that they are dead, completely due to how they positioned themselves on the regional and global landscape.
dekelpilli 1y ago
This was Israel's thinking with Hamas - they're deterred, they're comfortable and in charge and they wouldn't do anything to jeopardise that, etc. Israel's thinking was wrong, and they've learned to believe their enemies when they say they want to destroy Israel. There isn't a country in the world that would allow their enemies, who have repeatedly stated that said country's demise is a key goal of theirs, to develop nukes if they have with the capability to stop it.
- hotmeals 1y ago
  >[Hamas] they're deterred, they're comfortable and in charge That's just being deluded, being a in open air prison is different from being a sovereign nation.
mattmaroon 1y ago
They’re not stupid, the believe in an ideology that glorifies martyrs. If you actually believe in martyrdom nuking Israel is the sensible thing to do even knowing you’ll get it right back.

ashoeafoot 1y ago

[flagged]

solumunus 1y ago

Silly! Such flippant language. Yes, it would be silly. Jihadists do “silly” things all the time. Their goals are “silly”.

jeswin 1y ago

> illegal WMD Who has "legal" WMDs - the P5? Israel is a non-signatory to NPT, meaning their WMDs are as legal as anyone else's.

mattmaroon 1y ago

It can be both. You're creating a false dichotomy. https://www.bu.edu/history/files/2015/04/Khalaji-Apocalyptic-Politics-On-the-Rationality-of-Iranian-Policy.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email https://www.bu.edu/history/files/2015/04/Khalaji-Apocalyptic... Mutual destruction makes sense when you're a death cult and the enemy is evil. Iran nuking Israel knowing full well they will get nuked back IS rational if your belief is that Allah will reward you for it in the afterlife and they do sincerly believe that. You should read books published by reformed Islamists. Radical by Maajid Nawaz is a good one. They profess to believe (and they are sincere) that they will be rewarded for dying killing Israelis. There's a reason that if I tell you a story about a suicide bomber blowing up a public square in political protest you do not have to wonder what religion they are. It's not because all Muslims are insane, they aren't, it's because some of them have beliefs that make that action rational. (For example, see how Hamas will not surrender even when offered free passage out of Gaza. They'd rather Israel grind their way through the Palestinian population bomb by bomb because they think every Palestinian killed goes to heaven. If they were rational as we understand the world, they'd realize their plight is hopeless and the only thing they ensure by staying is civillian deaths.)

samjones33 1y ago
>(For example, see how Hamas will not surrender Yup. Hamas will fight to the last Palestinian. They could have ended the Gaza war a year ago (or more). All they have to say is: "Here are the hostages. Here are our weapons. We are now shoemakers." Why don't they do this? Because they would rather fight to the last Palestinian child. Hamas has agency. They could end war any time since October 8, 2023.
- dreghgh 1y ago
  The PLO pulled out of Beirut in the early 1980s after being given guarantees from the international community that the remaining Palestinian population, unarmed civilians, would be protected both from Lebanese Christians and Israeli forces. Then Israeli forces colluded with Christian militias to massacre Palestinians in their camps. Hamas was never going to disarm and hand back the hostages based on "Trust me, bro".