The irony being that Iran must get nukes now. It is readily apparent they cannot defend themselves conventionally. Nukes are the ultimate deterrence. This wouldn’t be happening if they had a credible, survivable nuclear deterrence. QED this forces Iran to acquire nukes.
Which country? Do you think Canada is sovereign? Do you think it will be able to defend itself if Trump gives the military an order to make them the 51st state by any means necessary?
Well, Afghanistan defended itself for a bit. As did Vietnam, as clear examples. Neither possess nuclear weapons.
Today countries as various as Brazil and Australia are independent, sovereign nations. Even Ukraine which was invaded by nuclear-armed Russia is still sovereign and fighting. Iran for that matter still has its sovereignty, they just lost some military assets.
Canada is sovereign because of its proximity and interconnection with US. If your economy is large enough, you can "nuke" your opponents by using mutually assured poverty.
But I largely agree, if you aren't a giant economy and you don't have nukes - then if the US or Russia accesses you of building nukes, you need to start building nukes ASAP.
TSMC is an economic nuke and not just by accident. The Taiwanese intentionally tried with several industries it heavily subsidized to find one where it could make itself so valuable that other countries (with nukes) would be compelled to protect it (potentially with nukes).
Iran will definitely continue pursuing uranium enrichment. IRIB claims that the enriched uranium stockpile was moved away from those locations - which makes sense, so they probably didn't lose their stockpile. They will build new enrichment sites, which means bombing again.
I think it's too early to say that the Fordow facility has definitely been destroyed. So far I've only heard Trump make the claim and I'm not inclined to take his word for it.
True, Trump's words are worthless. I'm hearing that the Iranian state media is claiming no irreversible damage at Fordow / only entry points were targeted - but ofcourse that doesn't carry much weight either.
FWIW one take on all of this that I have considered is that Israel and the US have been looking for an out that allows them to claim to have successfully achieved their objectives. I wouldn't be surprised if this attack was unsuccessful but won't be followed up if that becomes apparent later.
Israel only just (before this US bombing) claimed they had set Iran's nuclear program back by 2-3 years. I found the timing of the announcement curious.
This after suffering extensive damage from direct missile strikes (Haifa port/refinery, Mossad headquarters, Wiezmann institute, C4I/cyber defense, etc). I think the missile strikes have been much more damaging than expected and understandably under-reported. Weapons expert Ted Postol of MIT claims Israel's missile defense is only intercepting around 5%.
I think Israel will be very unhappy if things continue to escalate without further US involvement. Depending on how Iran retaliates against the US, further involvement might not be forthcoming. We've seen seen Iran attack a US base in Jordan without causing escalation from the US. Could expect something similar.
I've wondered how much of a deterrent dirty bombs are or aren't outside of nukes and curious if they might be in the cards for retaliatory moves by Iran.
My understanding is those don't accomplish much militarily since they just give people cancer 30 years later. So you commit a war crime for no military advantage, then what? The other country just hits back with a dirty bomb of their own?
My mental model does assume they must have plutonium in a meaningful quantity rather than just uranium for a dirty bomb to be remotely "effective" and I have no idea if that's even plausible. And if they do I'm not sure exactly what would lead to a dirty bomb over attempting an actual nuclear device.
But even a not very effective permutation of a dirty bomb seems like it could lead to headlines that look more "positive" for their leadership. (IE create outsized headlines.)
> The irony being that Iran must get nukes now. It is readily apparent they cannot defend themselves conventionally
If Iran is willing to use its nuclear weapons in response to this (limited, conventional air strikes), then that's a clear demonstration they aren't rational actors and can't be trusted with nuclear weapons.
I'm not sure what you mean - Iran has been full-tilt pursuing nuclear weapons for decades. And America, its partners, and even its definitely-not-partners, have been working to counter that the whole time.
Remember that in much of the middle east, Iran is considered an enemy.
That Iran has been "full-tilt" pursuing nuclear weapons for decades doesn't make sense. Building a nuke isn't that hard, and getting the nuclear material is the hardest part. They've got that worked out. They've had the capability to do so for 20 years now. I defer to the intelligence community; they have the capability to build the bomb within about a year if they chose to do so, and are also not actively attempting to do that. (Until a few days ago at least).
Iran's religious dictator issued a Fatwa declaring nukes haram. This is why they've consistently stopped at 60% enrichment.
In a religious cult, everything rides on the leadership. He can't just come out and change his mind. He must have a very definitive reason that doesn't disagree with the reasoning in the previous Fatwa. His only real out is an existential threat where threatening a nuke becomes a tool to preserve lives.
Israel and the US have now given him that out. It remains to be seen if he actually takes it.
Precisely, Trump could only do this terrorist attack because he knows for certain that Iran does not have nukes. Nukes are an abomination to the Islamic Rules of War - which is why there is/was a long standing fatwa against it.
You don't seem to understand that the government of Iran isn't going to exist in about 2 weeks. This was their only leverage in negotiation. Trump is about to make a speech in 30 minutes. It's over for them. The US does not just send B2 bombers without knowing it's going to work. Israeli intelligence and bombing for the past week was setting up for this final act.
> The US does not just send B2 bombers without knowing it's going to work.
I'm old enough to remember when we (the US) ran this exact playbook, except the last letter was 'q' instead of 'n'.
Spoiler: the B-2 played a part in both of the big wars we lost in the last couple of decades. The problem hinges on the definition of "work": yes, the bombs hit what they are aimed at. No, that does not result in operational success without a coherent theory of victory.
I'm old enough to remember that Iraq had its entire government toppled in about 3 weeks after the US invasion so this is not the example you think it is lol. You conveniently redefined what we are talking about. You must not remember saddam getting dragged through the streets.
no need to go into other areas of the conversation that didn't exist before you came along to insert some reason why you feel justified defending a regime that oppresses women through a "morality police" force. i don't care why you think they should be allowed to have nukes. i'm sure you can argue for it all day. you don't need to get philosophical about what is "winning" or "working".
if you can't agree on objective reality and what we are discussing, we have nothing to discuss. move on
Yes, the regime changed. Objectively, that is true. We agree on that. And then...
the US lost nearly 5,000 service members in Iraq. We are still paying for the $3 trillion the war cost. Americans derived no benefit whatsoever from the change of regime in Iraq, a country that had not attacked us.
As an American who lives in a US city not currently under attack by Iran, it is reasonable to ask why we should sign up for this again. This has absolutely zero with defending Iran. How they manage their domestic affairs has no bearing on me.
If there is a case to be made that we should curtail our urgent domestic policy goals in favor of another war thousands of miles from the US, it has not been made.
My concern is this: I have no dog in this fight, but now I am going to be asked to pay for it. And it working like it "worked" in Iraq is my primary concern on that front.
Isolating the first 3 weeks or so from an 8-year war to say that it "worked" is obviously a special kind of sophistry. I'm not sure what purpose is served by such an analysis, honestly.
And I'm old enough to remember the previous war with Iraq which left Iraq's government intact, and the 12 years of no fly zone operations before attempt 2. I also remember attempt 2 costing around $3 Trillion.
I remember that being caused by a massive US ground invasion, not by sustained bombing. Has the US spent the last six months building up ground forces on Iran's borders?
