Tensions in the Middle East

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by Looch City

Why hasn't Israel bombed the clock then?

Problem solved! That was 2ez.

At this point there is a good chance the clock was planted by Mossad

[blankall]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Perhaps I'm not great at reading the news but what exactly did Iran do to provoke the initial bombing campaign against it by Israel? Outside of "they might have some nukes" I don't see anything acute that would seem to have been a flashpoint to start a war. This feels like "Iraq had WMDs" all over again

I'm doing my best to stay out of the middle east discussions here but....Can people actually, with a straight face, say that Iran didn't provoke Israel?

Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Syria, constantly calling for Israel's destruction, etc...Hosting forums and inviting David Duke over to debate whether or not the holocaust happened.

Israel didn't act until now, because they couldn't. They were being threatened by Hezbollah and Hamas, and Syria had air defences that limited Israel's ability to strike Iran. Those threats have all been removed, paving the way to total air supremacy. Additionally, Iran stopped getting weapons from Russia and actually had to return some of them to Russia.

Regardless of what you think of Israel, how can anyone possibly look at Iran's actions in the region and not see provocation.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty...uclear_Weapons

I think Pointman is referencing this treaty. I could be wrong.

What i suspected, but wanted to be clear.

So Israel in enforcing a treaty that they are not a party to; using mechanisms of "enforcement" that do not exist in the Treaty.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

I'm doing my best to stay out of the middle east discussions here but....Can people actually, with a straight face, say that Iran didn't provoke Israel?

Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Syria, constantly calling for Israel's destruction, etc...Hosting forums and inviting David Duke over to debate whether or not the holocaust happened.

Israel didn't act until now, because they couldn't. They were being threatened by Hezbollah and Hamas, and Syria had air defences that limited Israel's ability to strike Iran. Those threats have all been removed, paving the way to total air supremacy. Additionally, Iran stopped getting weapons from Russia and actually had to return some of them to Russia.

Regardless of what you think of Israel, how can anyone possibly look at Iran's actions in the region and not see provocation.

“Israel didn’t act until now” my guy, Israel has been consistently acting over the past decade or more. They just struct Iran back in October. What are you talking about?

Citing David Duke and holocaust deniers as provocation for bombing civilians is crazy. If that’s the line then I assume you’re fully on the side of October 7 being the result of provocation as well, eh?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

“Israel didn’t act until now” my guy, Israel has been consistently acting over the past decade or more. They just struct Iran back in October. What are you talking about?

Citing David Duke and holocaust deniers as provocation for bombing civilians is crazy. If that’s the line then I assume you’re fully on the side of October 7 being the result of provocation as well, eh?

The strike in October cleared out air defences, which are allowing for the wider strikes now.

As stated before, Iran has been constantly "provoking" an attack. It couldn't take place until now.

[Fuzz]

It was a silly attempt at justification by Pointman. It's weird how he is only interested in holding some countries to account for their obligations, and not others. I'm pretty sure Israel signed something saying they couldn't blow up children because they are scared, but that doesn't appear to stop them.


Or Russia wanting Crimea back for reasons that violate many international laws and treaties they signed, but it was kind of OK they killed all those people in the process. Moral consistency doesn't seem to be something they teach in Russian schools, I guess.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by blankall

The strike in October cleared out air defences, which are allowing for the wider strikes now.

As stated before, Iran has been constantly "provoking" an attack. It couldn't take place until now.

"they were asking for it"

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Cappy

What i suspected, but wanted to be clear.

So Israel in enforcing a treaty that they are not a party to; using mechanisms of "enforcement" that do not exist in the Treaty.

I think this might be more like Israel having the right to defend itself.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

The strike in October cleared out air defences, which are allowing for the wider strikes now.

As stated before, Iran has been constantly "provoking" an attack. It couldn't take place until now.

Maybe read up on your history or continue to avoid weighing in on a conflict you don’t understand, because you just contradicted yourself or conveniently omitted that detail in your first “take” on the subject.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-ir...3e4a486946bcb8

Here are some highlights from the Israeli side:

2010 — The Stuxnet computer virus is discovered and widely believed to be a joint U.S.-Israeli creation. The virus disrupted and destroyed Iranian centrifuges.

2020 — Alleged Israeli attacks against Iran’s nuclear program are stepped up significantly after the disintegration of the 2015 nuclear deal meant to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

July 2020 — A mysterious explosion tears apart a centrifuge production plant at Iran’s Natanz nuclear enrichment facility. Iran blames the attack on Israel.

November 2020 — A top Iranian military nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, is killed by a remote-controlled machine gun while traveling in a car outside Tehran. A top Iranian security official accuses Israel of using “electronic devices” to remotely kill the scientist, who founded Iran’s military nuclear program in the 2000s.

April 11, 2021 — An attack targets Iran’s underground nuclear facility in Natanz. Iran blames Israel, which does not claim responsibility, but Israeli media widely reports the government orchestrated a cyberattack that caused a blackout at the facility.

June 2022 — Iran accuses Israel of poisoning two nuclear scientists in different cities within three days of each other, though circumstances remain unclear.

Feb. 14, 2024 — An Israeli sabotage attack causes multiple explosions on an Iranian natural gas pipeline running from Iran’s western Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province to cities on the Caspian Sea.

April 1, 2024 — An Israeli airstrike demolishes Iran’s Consulate in Damascus, Syria, killing 16 people, including two Iranian generals.

April 19, 2024 — A suspected Israeli strike hits an air defense system near an airport in Isfahan, Iran.

July 31, 2024 — Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh is assassinated by an apparent Israeli airstrike during a visit to Tehran. Israel had pledged to kill Haniyeh and other Hamas leaders over the Oct. 7 attack.

Oct. 26, 2024 — Israel openly attacks Iran for the first time, striking air defense systems and sites associated with its missile program.

Friday, June 13, 2025 — Israel launches blistering attacks on the heart of Iran’s nuclear and military structure, deploying warplanes and drones previously smuggled into the country to assault key facilities and kill top generals and scientists.

“They didn’t attack until now” lol jfc

This is not to show Iran as the victim or without blame. They supported Hamas. They’ve bombed Israel. Both much more relevant than “they invited David Duke to speak.” And among these Israeli strikes are Iranian strikes on Israel (some preceding, some not). But the idea that Israel has done nothing until now and were simply provoked into this isn’t an educated take on the conflict.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Cappy

"they were asking for it"

Iran was constantly attacking Israel while hiding behind Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria. Do people really see a difference between Iran attacking Israel directly or providing missiles to Hezbollah and then having Hezbollah attack Israel?

I'm not sure what your quote is about, but you seem to be comparing Iran to a victim of abuse?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Maybe read up on your history or continue to avoid weighing in on a conflict you don’t understand, because you just contradicted yourself or conveniently omitted that detail in your first “take” on the subject.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-ir...3e4a486946bcb8

Here are some highlights from the Israeli side:



“They didn’t attack until now” lol jfc

This is not to show Iran as the victim or without blame. They supported Hamas. They’ve bombed Israel. Both much more relevant than “they invited David Duke to speak.” And among these Israeli strikes are Iranian strikes on Israel (some preceding, some not). But the idea that Israel has done nothing until now and were simply provoked into this isn’t an educated take on the conflict.

Okay...

Israel couldn't attack, in the way they are now, until now then. There have been a series of changes on the ground that have allowed Israel's current attacks on Iran, those include: the fall of Hamas, the fall of Hezbollah, the fall of Assad, the war in Ukraine, instability in Iran, etc...

You don't think inviting David Duke to speak isn't provocation?

I don't think I ever once said Israel has done nothing until now.

[IliketoPuck]

Hypothetically, Iran is a reasoned actor and a country of peace, it doesn't mind Israel existing as a nation, and has decided to pursue a nuclear program. Does Israel attack them under these circumstances?

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Hypothetically, Iran is a reasoned actor and a country of peace, it doesn't mind Israel existing as a nation, and has decided to pursue a nuclear program. Does Israel attack them under these circumstances?

I guess the best example to your question is probably Pakistan given that they are a Muslim country and border Afghanistan and Iran. Israel was not a fan of Pakistan getting nukes in the late 90’s but given Pakistan is far more concerned with countering India, Israel did not do much to stop their nuclear program which had operated since the 70’s. There were other geopolitical factors such as China being a major backer of Pakistans nuclear program. So the counter point would be maybe Israel or the US would have interfered if China was not involved. Netanyahu was also the PM at the time when Pakistan obtained nuclear capabilities.

I don’t think I can give your question a yes or no but Pakistan is probably the best example we can rely on if you were to argue that Israel would be ok with a muslim country relatively nearby gaining nukes if they were not sworn enemies.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

You don't think inviting David Duke to speak isn't provocation?

What do you think it’s provoking? Because it sounds very much like your position is that inviting David Duke to speak provoked a military attack, even in part. Not only would this not be recognized as provocation that justifies this response by any legal, ethical, or normative standard, but it is in line with the justifications terrorists like the ones who attacked Charlie Hebdo use.

And if you don’t believe it’s provocation under these terms, why bring it up or question anyone who rightfully believes it isn’t?

Is it OK for Hamas to attack Israel because people marched in Jerusalem chanting “Death to Arabs?” Would that be considered valid military provocation to you?

[FlamesAddiction]

What comedian was it that said if you really want MAD as deterrent, every country should get 1 nuke each. I know it's not practical and meant to be funny, but it's also kind of true.

For me personally, I think it's completely valid to prevent proliferation among certain societies. Islamic fundamentalism is basically a doomsday cult that looks forward to the end and fulfilling prophecies that will get them there (one of those being that the day of judgment can't come until all Jews are gone). It's like those Christian fundies that lobby for policy that they think will bring the final judgement closer. And while those guys scare the crap out of me and have way more influence in the U.S. than I'd like, they aren't in complete control like their counterparts are in places like Iran and Gaza. I think it's also hard to deny that Iran openly and vigorously sponsors terrorism. Iran getting nukes is only one step close to non-state actors getting nukes because I don't believe for a second that they wouldn't proliferate them to terrorist organizations anywhere in the world.

Having said that, I have no idea how close they actually are or were to getting nuclear weapons. The British inspectors that were there on May 14th said it was difficult to really know because they were restricted and it didn't seem like Iran was being transparent. This in itself doesn't suggest they were close because using uncertainty is also a deterrent even if you are nowhere near close (Saddam Hussein liked to use the same tactic). Other sources seem to think they were further away than just weeks, but I have no doubt that they are trying to get there eventually. I am not saying that it justifies Israelis initiative, I just don't fall for the notion that Iran isn't trying to get there.

[TherapyforGlencross]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-officials-say

The effectiveness of GBU-57s has been a topic of deep contention at the Pentagon since the start of Trump’s term, according to two defense officials who were briefed that perhaps only a tactical nuclear weapon could be capable of destroying Fordow because of how deeply it is located.

Trump is not considering using a tactical nuclear weapon on Fordow and the possibility was not presented by defense secretary Pete Hegseth and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen Dan Caine in meetings in the White House situation room, two people familiar with the matter said.

But the defense officials who received the briefing were told that using conventional bombs, even as part of a wider strike package of several GBU-57s, would not penetrate deep enough underground and that it would only do enough damage to collapse tunnels and bury it under rubble.

The defense officials were also told that to completely destroy Fordow, which Israeli intelligence estimates to go down as far as 300ft, it would likely require the US to first soften the ground with conventional bombs and then ultimately drop a tactical nuclear weapon from a B2 bomber.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I think this might be more like Israel having the right to defend itself.

From what?

The leading MO is that Iran has defied the NPT and are producing nukes. Pointman specifically used the "Treaty" to defend this action.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by blankall

Iran was constantly attacking Israel while hiding behind Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria. Do people really see a difference between Iran attacking Israel directly or providing missiles to Hezbollah and then having Hezbollah attack Israel?

I'm not sure what your quote is about, but you seem to be comparing Iran to a victim of abuse?

Yeah, there kind of is a difference. Nation States meddle in internal affairs, revolutions, rebellions, etc. all the time.

We typically do not seem to mind because (1) "we" are the ones doing it and (2) its for a "good" cause; (3) "we" carry the biggest stick and have protection from a nuclear umbrella.

I'm not saying Israel's reaction is wrong, but Im not about to justify it as some noble or righteous act. Nor will I state that this will result in a more stable Middle East.

My quote was in relation to your quote of "provoking" which, given how this attack started (nuclear arsenal fears) is largely illusory. It's like saying Ukraine was provoking Russia to invade because they were cosy with NATO.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What do you think it’s provoking? Because it sounds very much like your position is that inviting David Duke to speak provoked a military attack, even in part. Not only would this not be recognized as provocation that justifies this response by any legal, ethical, or normative standard, but it is in line with the justifications terrorists like the ones who attacked Charlie Hebdo use.

And if you don’t believe it’s provocation under these terms, why bring it up or question anyone who rightfully believes it isn’t?

Is it OK for Hamas to attack Israel because people marched in Jerusalem chanting “Death to Arabs?” Would that be considered valid military provocation to you?

Those "Death to Arab" chants seem specifically designed to provoke people. If the Israeli government hosted an international conference and invited similar people from across the world to speak, it'd be a much bigger provocation. If they did so while giving billions of dollars to militant groups who were fighting Arab nations, that'd be an even larger provocation.

I'd argue Iran has gone far beyond the "provoking" stage. How many rockets from Hezbollah and Hamas that were supplied by Iran landed on Israel? Hezbollah follows the doctrines (and often direct orders) of the Ayatollah, have been trained by Iran, have been provided with weapons by Iran, receives billions of dollars from Iran, etc.... at what point is an attack from Hezbollah not a direct attack from Iran?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

Those "Death to Arab" chants seem specifically designed to provoke people. If the Israeli government hosted an international conference and invited similar people from across the world to speak, it'd be a much bigger provocation. If they did so while giving billions of dollars to militant groups who were fighting Arab nations, that'd be an even larger provocation.

I'd argue Iran has gone far beyond the "provoking" stage. How many rockets from Hezbollah and Hamas that were supplied by Iran landed on Israel? Hezbollah follows the doctrines (and often direct orders) of the Ayatollah, have been trained by Iran, have been provided with weapons by Iran, receives billions of dollars from Iran, etc.... at what point is an attack from Hezbollah not a direct attack from Iran?

Do you believe speaking events within one nation’s borders are valid provocations of military action from another nation, to the point where they justify those actions?

Yes or no?