None of that matters to the actual reason the war started. — Mr Bee

Yes, it does. After Gulf War 1, if Iraq had been completely transparent about the end of it's WMD program and destruction of all it's WMD"s, do you think they still would have been invaded?

The US wanted to go to war with Iraq as much as the Israelis do now with Iran, because they perceive the Iranian regime itself as an existential threat.

America did not perceive Iraq to be an existential threat. Condi Rice talked about mushroom clouds, but nobody believed Iraq could end the country. If Iran got nukes, otoh, and took out Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and Haifa, could Israel come back from that? There's a case to be made that a nuclear Iran really could end Israel's existence.

Yes, it does. If, after Gulf War 1, Iraq had been completely transparent about the end of it's WMD program and destruction of all it's WMD"s, do you think they still would have been invaded? — RogueAI

Yes because the US would've fabricated another lie instead.

If Iran got nukes, otoh, and took out Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and Haifa, could Israel come back from that? There's a case to be made that a nuclear Iran really could end Israel's existence. — RogueAI

And this is why I think the Israelis will push for war until the regime collapses. The reason why they won't accept the Iranians getting a nuke is because of their government. Iran getting rid of a nuclear deterrent will make them more vulnerable.

If those ceasefire news are true, it's time for Netanyahu to go to jail --after leading "Israeli democracy" for 17 years.

He didn't throw the regime, he didn't destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities, he didn't make Iran commit to abandoning terrorists. The only thing Netanyahu achieved was killing more than 700 Iranians and exposing the flaws of the Iron Dome.

Insofar as Khamenei didn't back up from anything, Iran got stronger from this war and will free itself from any IAEA non-proliferation obligations, with the help of Pakistan I guess.

do you think they still would have been invaded? — RogueAI

I think the US knew Saddam couldn't back down. After the war, Wolfowitz explained that the point was to democratize the Middle East starting with Iraq. That was supposed to basically give al Qaeda what they wanted, so no more 9-11 style attacks.

All that thinking is in the past now. I don't think Trump entertains any middle eastern strategy.

The reason why they won't accept the Iranians getting a nuke is because of their government. — Mr Bee

Yes, because there's a literal clock in Tehran counting down to the prophesized destruction of Israel. Maybe stop doing stuff like that?

Iran getting rid of a nuclear deterrent will make them more vulnerable. — Mr Bee

They don't have a nuclear deterrent, that's their problem! You're arguing that Iran will think, 'if we just had nukes, we wouldn't be getting slapped around like this' but there are three objections to this:

1) The cost of pursuing a nuclear weapon has just been made prohibitively more expensive and dangerous. America and Israel aren't doing regime change, but that can easily change if Iran doesn't mend their ways. Upper echelon military and political leaders now know that their lives are expendable.

2) It's not enough to build a nuke. In order to have a credible deterrent, a nuke has to be successfully tested. So, what happens if it doesn't work right? A fizzile, in other words. Well, now Iran is truly screwed, because Israel and the U.S. really will decapitate the ruling regime and Iran has no credible deterrant.

3) Even if Iran successfully tests a nuke, what is Israel's best strategic move? Prevent Iran from getting more nukes. Regime change. And their buddy Trump will probably go along with it.

If you're Iran, isn't the best move to give up on enrichment and take your chances with diplomacy?

If you're Iran, isn't the best move to give up on enrichment and take your chances with diplomacy? — RogueAI

Every illegal attack, like the two we've recently witnessed, is an argument for them to pursue a nuclear bomb as that is the only weapon that truly acts like a deterrent. That's rather obvious.

I think the US knew Saddam couldn't back down. After the war, Wolfowitz explained that the point was to democratize the Middle East starting with Iraq. That was supposed to basically give al Qaeda what they wanted, so no more 9-11 style attacks. — frank

That was undoubtedly part of it, but remember that almost all of the hijackers came from SA, and we haven't done a thing to them.

All that thinking is in the past now. I don't think Trump entertains any middle eastern strategy. — frank

The nonAmericans here don't understand this. They think Trump and Americans are just itching to take out Iran. Instead, we're looking at what Trump is doing like someone watching a horror movie with their hands over their face. It's worked out well enough for Trump so far, but there is zero appetite in the U.S. for another Middle East adventure. Trump's attempts at playing peace maker now are laughably transparent. He doesn't want to invade or keep bombing. He wants Iran to suck up to us so we can make money and build condos in Tehran.

Every illegal attack, like the two we've recently witnessed, is an argument for them to pursue a nuclear bomb as that is the only weapon that truly acts like a deterrent. That's rather obvious. — Benkei

I don't think it is obvious. Many of you here are having a very hard time putting yourselves in Israel's shoes and seeing the culpability of Iran here. If you constantly threaten the annihilation of the strongest kid on the block, and fund terrorist proxies to go after him, and you're now scheming to get your hands on a new big weapon...might the problem be you?

The calculus is simple.

Iran is a large country, rich in oil, with strong allies, with a large, well-educated population, situated on a geopolitically critical region of the world.

These are the basic building blocks of a regional power.

Unless it is constantly hamstrung, it will escape the US intervention window and easily surpass Israel in terms of geopolitical power. It doesn't even need WMDs for that.

That's what the past century of US-Israeli policy have been about: preventing Iran from developing into a regional power. All the rest is bullshit.

Maybe stop doing stuff like that? — RogueAI

Your original point was that they should just abandon their nuke program and everything would be fine for them.

The cost of pursuing a nuclear weapon has just been made prohibitively more expensive and dangerous. — RogueAI

And the cost of not having a nuclear weapon has also been made more clear to other countries adding to the examples of Iraq and Libya.

Well, now Iran is truly screwed, because Israel and the U.S. really will decapitate the ruling regime. — RogueAI

Which isn't much different from what they're doing now, particularly in Israel's case.

Even if Iran successfully tests a nuke, what is Israel's best strategic move? Prevent Iran from getting more nukes. Regime change. And their buddy Trump will probably go along with it. — RogueAI

Their best strategic move is to not to recklessly anger another nuclear power. North Korea also demonizes the Americans regularly and guess what, nobody is messing with them because they actually have a bomb.

If you're Iran, isn't the best move to give up on enrichment and take your chances with diplomacy? — RogueAI

Maybe, if they didn't try diplomacy 10 years ago and got a deal that was eventually ripped up before getting bombed anyways.

That was undoubtedly part of it, but remember that almost all of the hijackers came from SA, and we haven't done a thing to them. — RogueAI

Wolfowitz believed democracy would spread outward from Iraq and eventually change SA. He had witnessed this in SE Asia, and so thought would happen in the Middle East as well.

The nonAmericans here don't understand this. They think Trump and Americans are just itching to take out Iran. — RogueAI

I can see why it would be difficult to grasp that American involvement is really just that Trump saw Israel winning and wanted to get in on the victory feels.

Instead, we're looking at what Trump is doing like someone watching a horror movie with their hands over their face. — RogueAI

:grin: I read the NY Times, but I avoid news otherwise. I just don't want to hear about Trump.

Which isn't much different from what they're doing now, particularly in Israel's case. — Mr Bee

You think you're seeing regime change? We've seen America do regime change. This is not regime change. I don't think Israel is doing it either. I think they could decapitate Iran if they really wanted to, but they don't want that. Yet. Israel could be much more ruthless than they currently are.

Their best strategic move is to not to recklessly anger another nuclear power. North Korea also demonizes the Americans regularly and guess what, nobody is messing with them because they actually have a bomb. — Mr Bee

Nobody messed with N. Korea before they had the bomb. They just kind of fester there on the Korean Peninsula.

Do you think Israel would allow the current regime to acquire a bomb and stay in power?

I read the NY Times, but I avoid news otherwise. I just don't want to hear about Trump. — frank

Well, he's the president. And we're attacking another country! How do you avoid it??? The NYTimes is solid, though.

Ah yes... the "they're 2 weeks away from a bomb" for decades pre-emptive canard. The idea Iran would go so far as to actually drop a bomb on Israel even if it had one is idiotic. There's no credible evidence Iran's leadership is irrational or suicidal as such an attack would guarantee its own annihilation. Israel has their own bombs and a lot more of them and the US would probably retaliate as well.

What is a common thread is how Israeli governments under Netanyahu have repeatedly used this so-called threat to unite internally, secure foreign aid and justify committing war crimes again.

You think you're seeing regime change? We've seen America do regime change. This is not regime change. I don't think Israel is doing it either. I think they could decapitate Iran if they really wanted to, but they don't want that. Yet. Israel could be much more ruthless than they currently are. — RogueAI

Israel certainly is going beyond just targeting Iran's nukes in it's strikes. Given Netanyahu's constant messages calling on the Iranians to rise up against their unpopular regime, he certaintly is trying to topple the regime also. As far as I can tell they were also planning to do a decapitation but according to reports (which could very well be false) they were told not to by the Americans.

Nobody messed with N. Korea before they had the bomb. They just kind of fester there, on the Korean Peninsula. — RogueAI

And they likely never will because they have a bomb. As big and powerful as the US is it can't get in the business of every country at once, and it certainly won't get involved when those other countries can strike back with a nuclear weapon. North Korea acquired nukes as the US was invading Iraq, you know, when you would've thought that the "cost of pursuing nuclear weapons" with Iraq being made an example would've deterred them.

"Iran has further increased its stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels, a confidential report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Saturday. In a separate report, the agency called on Tehran to urgently change course and comply with its years-long probe."

https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-uranium-7f6c9962c1e4199e951559096bcf5cc0

Why is Iran doing that?

Netanyahu claimed Iran was 2 weeks away from the bomb in 1992 and has continued to repeat if ever since.

Yes, but now there's a UN agency, and the UN is no friend to Israel, backing up Israel's claim.

Again with the oversimplifications. Yes, Iran is a structural rival to US-aligned states and Israel. Yes, the US has often acted to constrain Iran.

But "all the rest is bullshit" is not analysis. US foreign policy is not the product of a unified long-term strategy. It’s the outcome of bureaucratic drift, lobbying, shifting administrations and often contradictory goals. At different times the US has supported and opposed Iran. It has sanctioned Iran while supplying arms to Iran (see: Iran-Contra affair).

If “preventing Iran from becoming a regional power” were the only goal, why allow Saudi Arabia to brutalise Yemen or flood the region with Salafi militias? Why oscillate on Syria?

The NYTimes is solid, though.

The NYTimes has been on the cool aid since everyone kissed the ring last November.

Ostensibly for power generation. Possibly to gain a nuclear bomb. But even the latter doesn't give Israel and the US the right to bomb nuclear facilities and risk nuclear fall out. It's also a totally irrelevant reply to my point that the purported existential threat Israel claims exists isn't there.

The NYTimes has been on the cool aid since everyone kissed the ring last November. — Punshhh

Kool aid, with a k. What Kool aid are you talking about?

Yes, but now there's a UN agency, and the UN is no friend to Israel, backing up Israel's claim

Well they realised the U.S. and Israel couldn’t be trusted when Trump tore up the deal with Iran in 2016. This point became inevitable then. So much winning.

What Kool aid are you talking about?

The one where you don’t criticise what Trump is doing and treat him as a credible leader rather than a clown.

Ostensibly for power generation. — Benkei

Lol

Possibly to gain a nuclear bomb. — Benkei

Yes.

But even the latter doesn't give Israel and the US the right to bomb nuclear facilities and risk nuclear fall out. — Benkei

There hasn't been nuclear fallout, there won't be nuclear fallout. Now, do Israel and America have the right to bomb Iran? Depends. What are Iran's intentions? What are they saying? What are their plans? Death to Israel and America! Well, then. What did Iran think would happen?

It's also a totally irrelevant reply to my point that the purported existential threat Israel claims exists isn't there. — Benkei

If someone keeps threatening to annihilate you, and has a clock on display counting down the days to your annihilation, maybe your enemies will take you seriously on that?

The one where you don’t criticise what Trump is doing and treat him as a credible leader rather than a clown. — Punshhh

I see. So, the NYTimes is drinking the Trump Koolaid. Is that what you're claiming?

I don't think it's an oversimplification. Every theory ultimately is a simplification, and the argument "reality is more complicated" is not an argument either unless you provide a theory with greater explanatory value.

What I've described is the red thread that characterizes a century of US involvement with Iran.

US actions vis-á-vis other nations in the region have their own logic to them (and sometimes the logic conflicts). US involvement with Saudi-Arabia however is almost entirely based around using them to balance Iran - this is basic balance of power politics.

I see. So, the NYTimes is drinking the Trump Koolaid. Is that what you're claiming?

Yes, they all are, every establishment is. There’s no credible opposition left, can’t you see that yet.

There hasn't been nuclear fallout, there won't be nuclear fallout. — RogueAI

That has been luck. Read the IAEA reports and statements on attacking nuclear sites.

Now, do Israel and America have the right to bomb Iran? Depends. What are Iran's intentions? What are they saying? What are their plans? Death to Israel and America! Well, then. What did Iran think would happen? — RogueAI

No. Also, you're assuming a lot of things Iran supposedly says but they've never said because you like to lap up propaganda instead of fact check things. First of all, Ayatollah Khomeini in 2005 said "This regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." The original phrase (این رژیم اشغالگر قدس باید از صفحه روزگار محو شود) has been repeatedly translated as "wiped form the face of the earth" but arises from a wrong translation.

If someone keeps threatening to annihilate you, and has a clock on display counting down the days to your annihilation, maybe your enemies will take you seriously on that? — RogueAI

Ah yes, the symbolic clock that everybody loves to interpret as a military countdown. In 2015 Khameini said "I'd say that they will not see the next 25 years". It's counting down until 2040. The clock is internal propaganda rooted in their belief Israel's regional dominance is unsustainable.

Finally, Iran's official line is that the Zionist regime is illegitimate and should be replaced. What is meant by that becomes clearer if you look at the repeated calls for a referendum among all original inhabitants of Palestine: Muslims, Christians, Jews and Palestinian refugees as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a dismantling of the "Zionist regime". (He's said this in 2000, twice in 2012 and most recently in 2020).

To be clear, Zionism is understood as the movement to acquire an Israel from the West Bank to the sea as included in Likud's charter (and Herut before it). If anybody in that area is hell bent on destroying anything, it's Israel with respect to the Palestinian lands and this should be resisted by everyone who cares about any type of international order.

Once again: prove they are suicidal or irrational and you have a case.

I already did twice. You are ignoring a lot of facts to reach your version of real politik interpretation. What we've seen that deny a consistent, long term strategy of containment:

1. We've seen doctrinal shifts as follows: Bush's axis of evil, then we saw Obama's JCPOA, then Trump's withdrawal, Biden's wishy-washy approach and now again Trump going on the attack.
2. The 1953 coup was Cold War containment not aimed at suppressing Iranian power. Since the 1979 revolution I don't see a unified strategy, instead shifting between confrontation and limited engagement.
3. During the Iraq war, the US basically handed Baghdad to pro-Iranian forces.
4. Your analysis also ignores lobbying by regional states like SA and Israel. It's client politics not puppet mastery.

Iran's containment, for what it's been, has been tactical not an absolute goal. An alternative view (which I consider more likely) recognizes containment as a recurring motif but not a coherent doctrine. US policy toward Iran has been shaped and distorted by domestic political cycles, institutional fragmentation and pressure from regional allies. What results is not a clean or consistent strategy of suppression but a messy and contradictory exercise in reactive hegemony, where containment competes with other priorities like energy security, counterterrorism, alliance management and electoral optics. Iran’s rise has been resisted but never with the kind of strategic clarity your version assumes.

But for their proxies in Gaza being annihilated, their nuclear facilities being devastated, their being under attack by the strongest military force on the planet, their enemy being a 3,000 year old civilization that is relentless, and that they agreed to a cease fire, Iran's got them just where they want them. — Hanover

Palestinians did not protect Iran, but Iran tried to protest Palestinians from genocide. First of all.

The nuclear facilities are civilian facilities, everything important was already moved out or can anyways be rebuilt. At least one influential faction in the Iranian military has been pushing for the development of nuclear weapons, they wouldn't do that in civilian facilities.

The civilian program (in terms of weapons development) is only needed to develop enrichment designs, not even equipment. This stuff isn't very large, it can easily be built anywhere (such as a military bunker), and Iran has Uranian mines so all it needs is understanding the enrichment technology, which they have done by developing about 6 generations of centrifuges.

Each generation of centrifuge is more efficient than the last, and more efficiency means you need either less machines or less time, and in both cases less energy.

They already have enriched to 60% which in terms of time and energy is 80% the way to weapons grade (the enrichment is more efficient the more enriched you go).

The limiting factor for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon since decades is not technology but diplomacy.

Iran needs to project stability and rationality to its partners, such as Russia, and that's done by being stable and rational. Now, simply capitulating on civilian nuclear development is not stable and rational and is terrible diplomacy vis-a-vis Russia as Russia maintains non-Western states have the same sovereignty and can develop civilian nuclear programs (Russia also sell civilian nuclear programs); and it doesn't even increase stability because having the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon and counter-strike Israel is a better deterrent than having no capacity. However, rushing to develop a nuclear weapon out-of-the-blue is also not stable or good diplomacy. Russia would likely join in sanctioning Iran as it's simple destabilizing and would lead to accelerated proliferation (Saudi Arabia getting the bomb etc.) if not a nuclear first strike by Israel.

So, for decades Iran has pursued the most stable diplomatic position of developing a civilian nuclear program that also serves as a deterrent to war with Iran.

By striking Iran in an act of illegal aggression, moreover assassinating top commanders and scientists, it removes the diplomatic obstacle for developing nuclear weapons.

Iran can now easily sell the narrative that it's Israel and the US that are out of control, not responsible actors, and they need nuclear weapons to defend themselves from these maniacs, same as North Korea.

The US' advantage in applying diplomatic pressure on Iran was in presenting themselves as the "responsible adults" and Iran as the reckless party that shouldn't have nuclear weapons, and we're simply not going to talk about Israel's nuclear weapons.

This war completely reverses that diplomatic status quo.

Even worse, by having this war, Iran can remove all the nuclear material it had under observation in a civilian program to hardened military sites for the development of nuclear weapons. So that physical obstacle, that the Uranian is being watched and to remove it would trigger a diplomatic and then likely military crisis in which no one has sympathy for Iran, is also removed.