The reporting on this has been utterly wild. No-one is keen on the Iranian regime and there's no debying they're a bunch of evil bastards, but how are media outlets just uncritically reporting that Israel is unilaterally bombing them, without declaration of war or any real cassus belli, and that's okay? Or that Israel's definition of "just targeting military leaders" includes blowing up an apartment building that the leader they were assassinating lived in? Or parrotting Trump's wambling that, "Iran needs to return to the negotiating table" and not reporting that Iran was in negotiations with the US as little as a week ago and the only reason they're not currently is because Israel bombed them the day before the next meeting was scheduled?
And now Donald "No more foreign wars" Trump has sent in US bombers. Huzzah.
Puja
Re: Iran war
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2025 2:13 pm
by Sandydragon
I agree that this is pushing the concept of preemptive strike beyond its limits. Iran has apparently got close to the level of refinement needed for an atomic weapon (well above that needed for domestic power use) and that is very concerning. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the Iranian regime is a disgrace.
But…. Netanyahu has been pushing this narrative for 30 years. He just isn’t credible. I suspect the timing is more about the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah have received a kicking of late and are in leas of a position to respond.
US intervention was almost inevitable when you consider the needs for specialist weaponry to get to the deep sites. But you have to wonder if Trump has been dragged into this or of this was a joint UUs - Israeli plan at the outset.
In terms of legal justification this is highly debatable.
How close should Israel wait until Iran has an operational bomb before attacking? Once a device is created, finding it would be almost impossible so the targets are at least more obvious at this stage. And Iran has made no secret of wanting to destroy Israel.
But this isn’t clear cut and is arguably very dubious. On a practical level I understand the reasoning, legally is far less clear and the long term implications don’t look good.
Re: Iran war
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2025 5:09 pm
by Son of Mathonwy
Thus is all about Netanyahu and his personal need for war, any war, to delay his day in court and his removal from office. There is no reason to think Iran is any closer to an a-bomb than they have been for years. If they were, US intelligence would have raised it rather than denied it. Netanyahu has been saying the same thing for decades.
Obviously this is all completely illegal. It's an unprovoked attack and the start of a war of aggression - 'the supreme international crime' according to the military tribunal at Nuremberg. If it functioned, the UN Security Council should be voting on this. It makes a mockery of any kind of rules-based world order. It is perhaps the end of such an idea.
Trump. Who knows what guides his decisions? Why does the US tag along like Israel's lackey? Iran was in negotiations for God's sake.
Long term, this will be bad. No doubt there will be consequences for decades to come (admittedly difficult to separate from those arising from Gaza, but this is adding millions to those who want revenge.)
Re: Iran war
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2025 5:11 pm
by Puja
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 2:13 pm
I agree that this is pushing the concept of preemptive strike beyond its limits. Iran has apparently got close to the level of refinement needed for an atomic weapon (well above that needed for domestic power use) and that is very concerning. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the Iranian regime is a disgrace.
Have they though? I've yet to see any credible institution that was suggesting this before the Israeli strikes - the IAEA inspections noted that they have got 400kg of highly refined uranium and that that was a problem, but that there was no evidence that they were progressing towards gaining the technology to turn that into a bomb. While I agree that the Iranian regime are fucking awful, there's no evidence that they were doing anything with their refined uranium apart from flaunting it as revenge for Trump torpedoing the treaty because it was Obama's/as leverage to encourage the US to negotiate with them.
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 2:13 pmIn terms of legal justification this is highly debatable.
How close should Israel wait until Iran has an operational bomb before attacking? Once a device is created, finding it would be almost impossible so the targets are at least more obvious at this stage. And Iran has made no secret of wanting to destroy Israel.
But this isn’t clear cut and is arguably very dubious. On a practical level I understand the reasoning, legally is far less clear and the long term implications don’t look good.
This is the crux of it. Even if Iran actually were, "just months away from becoming a nuclear power", then who elected Israel the world's policeman - for that matter, who elected them judge, jury, and executioner? If they have conclusive evidence of an imminent nuclear threat, then present it publically to the UN and seek a resolution - they probably wouldn't get it with the mess that is the Security Council at present, but I want to hear a lot more proof that Iran is developing a bomb than, "Bibi finds it politically expedient for that to now be the truth".
There is also the argument that it's incredibly high-handed to unilaterally declare them unworthy of having a bomb. As noted, Iran's government is a disgrace who has made no secret of wanting to destroy Israel, but they're also not martyrs - nuking Israel (assuming it even got through the Iron Dome) would be a victory for about 20 minutes until the USA levelled the entire country and I have no doubt that the Ayatollah prefers the idea of a long life in power to being invaded, overthrown and shot. It could be argued that "Death to Israel and death to America" is a slogan rather than a mission statement nowadays.
That's very much not to say that I would approve of Iran having a nuke in any shape or form, but "having enriched uranium" does not equal "about to have a nuclear weapon" and, "about to have a nuclear weapon" does not equal "about to use a nuclear weapon". Israel's cassus belli is based around the risk of the latter and I am very far from convinced it's valid.
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 2:13 pm
I agree that this is pushing the concept of preemptive strike beyond its limits. Iran has apparently got close to the level of refinement needed for an atomic weapon (well above that needed for domestic power use) and that is very concerning. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the Iranian regime is a disgrace.
Have they though? I've yet to see any credible institution that was suggesting this before the Israeli strikes - the IAEA inspections noted that they have got 400kg of highly refined uranium and that that was a problem, but that there was no evidence that they were progressing towards gaining the technology to turn that into a bomb. While I agree that the Iranian regime are fucking awful, there's no evidence that they were doing anything with their refined uranium apart from flaunting it as revenge for Trump torpedoing the treaty because it was Obama's/as leverage to encourage the US to negotiate with them.
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 2:13 pmIn terms of legal justification this is highly debatable.
How close should Israel wait until Iran has an operational bomb before attacking? Once a device is created, finding it would be almost impossible so the targets are at least more obvious at this stage. And Iran has made no secret of wanting to destroy Israel.
But this isn’t clear cut and is arguably very dubious. On a practical level I understand the reasoning, legally is far less clear and the long term implications don’t look good.
This is the crux of it. Even if Iran actually were, "just months away from becoming a nuclear power", then who elected Israel the world's policeman - for that matter, who elected them judge, jury, and executioner? If they have conclusive evidence of an imminent nuclear threat, then present it publically to the UN and seek a resolution - they probably wouldn't get it with the mess that is the Security Council at present, but I want to hear a lot more proof that Iran is developing a bomb than, "Bibi finds it politically expedient for that to now be the truth".
There is also the argument that it's incredibly high-handed to unilaterally declare them unworthy of having a bomb. As noted, Iran's government is a disgrace who has made no secret of wanting to destroy Israel, but they're also not martyrs - nuking Israel (assuming it even got through the Iron Dome) would be a victory for about 20 minutes until the USA levelled the entire country and I have no doubt that the Ayatollah prefers the idea of a long life in power to being invaded, overthrown and shot. It could be argued that "Death to Israel and death to America" is a slogan rather than a mission statement nowadays.
That's very much not to say that I would approve of Iran having a nuke in any shape or form, but "having enriched uranium" does not equal "about to have a nuclear weapon" and, "about to have a nuclear weapon" does not equal "about to use a nuclear weapon". Israel's cassus belli is based around the risk of the latter and I am very far from convinced it's valid.
Puja
Refining uranium past the single figure levels needed for civil use is a huge red flag. There is only one reason to do that. So there’s definitely intention to create a bomb. The other technology isn’t that hard now for competent engineers.
Israel hasn’t said it intends to be the world’s policeman. Just prevent Iran having a bomb which might be used on it. Hence the term self defence, which is being pushed to the limits of its validity.
I think you’re being naive in relation to the potential martyrdom of Iranian leadership. These are the people who grew up idolising children being marched into minefields. They might wish to die too soon but if that’s the price of extracting a huge price from Israel is not bed against them making that call.
I agree that there’s plenty of room for doubt about Israeli decision making right now, and the legality of it.
Re: Iran war
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2025 7:08 pm
by Sandydragon
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 5:09 pm
Thus is all about Netanyahu and his personal need for war, any war, to delay his day in court and his removal from office. There is no reason to think Iran is any closer to an a-bomb than they have been for years. If they were, US intelligence would have raised it rather than denied it. Netanyahu has been saying the same thing for decades.
Obviously this is all completely illegal. It's an unprovoked attack and the start of a war of aggression - 'the supreme international crime' according to the military tribunal at Nuremberg. If it functioned, the UN Security Council should be voting on this. It makes a mockery of any kind of rules-based world order. It is perhaps the end of such an idea.
Trump. Who knows what guides his decisions? Why does the US tag along like Israel's lackey? Iran was in negotiations for God's sake.
Long term, this will be bad. No doubt there will be consequences for decades to come (admittedly difficult to separate from those arising from Gaza, but this is adding millions to those who want revenge.)
The legal issues facing Netanyahu are a fair point and I’m convinced that largely drives his decision making.
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 2:13 pm
I agree that this is pushing the concept of preemptive strike beyond its limits. Iran has apparently got close to the level of refinement needed for an atomic weapon (well above that needed for domestic power use) and that is very concerning. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the Iranian regime is a disgrace.
Have they though? I've yet to see any credible institution that was suggesting this before the Israeli strikes - the IAEA inspections noted that they have got 400kg of highly refined uranium and that that was a problem, but that there was no evidence that they were progressing towards gaining the technology to turn that into a bomb. While I agree that the Iranian regime are fucking awful, there's no evidence that they were doing anything with their refined uranium apart from flaunting it as revenge for Trump torpedoing the treaty because it was Obama's/as leverage to encourage the US to negotiate with them.
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 2:13 pmIn terms of legal justification this is highly debatable.
How close should Israel wait until Iran has an operational bomb before attacking? Once a device is created, finding it would be almost impossible so the targets are at least more obvious at this stage. And Iran has made no secret of wanting to destroy Israel.
But this isn’t clear cut and is arguably very dubious. On a practical level I understand the reasoning, legally is far less clear and the long term implications don’t look good.
This is the crux of it. Even if Iran actually were, "just months away from becoming a nuclear power", then who elected Israel the world's policeman - for that matter, who elected them judge, jury, and executioner? If they have conclusive evidence of an imminent nuclear threat, then present it publically to the UN and seek a resolution - they probably wouldn't get it with the mess that is the Security Council at present, but I want to hear a lot more proof that Iran is developing a bomb than, "Bibi finds it politically expedient for that to now be the truth".
There is also the argument that it's incredibly high-handed to unilaterally declare them unworthy of having a bomb. As noted, Iran's government is a disgrace who has made no secret of wanting to destroy Israel, but they're also not martyrs - nuking Israel (assuming it even got through the Iron Dome) would be a victory for about 20 minutes until the USA levelled the entire country and I have no doubt that the Ayatollah prefers the idea of a long life in power to being invaded, overthrown and shot. It could be argued that "Death to Israel and death to America" is a slogan rather than a mission statement nowadays.
That's very much not to say that I would approve of Iran having a nuke in any shape or form, but "having enriched uranium" does not equal "about to have a nuclear weapon" and, "about to have a nuclear weapon" does not equal "about to use a nuclear weapon". Israel's cassus belli is based around the risk of the latter and I am very far from convinced it's valid.
Puja
Refining uranium past the single figure levels needed for civil use is a huge red flag. There is only one reason to do that. So there’s definitely intention to create a bomb. The other technology isn’t that hard now for competent engineers.
I literally mentioned two other reasons in my post: 1) Because they can and it's retribution against Trump for tearing up the 2015 treaty (which they were complying with, according to every authority), 2) to use as a negotiating tool against the West to get sanctions removed - they don't have much leverage generally, and having a stockpile of enriched uranium can act as both carrot and stick: the promise to get rid of it for sanctions relief or the threat to sell it to bad actors if sanctions relief isn't forthcoming. Having enriched uranium isn't a great sign, but they've had a stockpile of some sort pretty much since 2019 and neither bomb nor exploded Israel has occurred, suggesting that either it's harder to build a nuke than you think or there does exist more than one reason to do that.
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 7:06 pm
Israel hasn’t said it intends to be the world’s policeman. Just prevent Iran having a bomb which might be used on it. Hence the term self defence, which is being pushed to the limits of its validity.
It has unilaterally declared someone guilty of a crime (which they themselves have previously committed), without providing any evidence, and then immediately shot them on the basis that they looked threatening. Sounds like a policeman to me.
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 7:06 pmI think you’re being naive in relation to the potential martyrdom of Iranian leadership. These are the people who grew up idolising children being marched into minefields. They might wish to die too soon but if that’s the price of extracting a huge price from Israel is not bed against them making that call.
I agree that there’s plenty of room for doubt about Israeli decision making right now, and the legality of it.
I will admit to not understanding the mindset of martyrs in general, but I'm not willing to credit the evil fuckers in charge of Iran with much actual piety. "Death to Israel" comes with an unspoken, yet fairly solid, "while we keep living" - they want to win, not have everybody lose. I don't see anything in the Iranian government that suggests they would be keen on mutually assured destruction, let alone the uneven trade-off of destroying one Israeli city in return for the complete levelling of their country.
Probably why there has been no Iranian nuke, despite the material - they don't want to raise the stakes to the extent that they become enough of a problem to be invaded.
Puja
Re: Iran war
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2025 7:23 pm
by paddy no 11
This khameni chap must be particularly thick
Re: Iran war
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2025 9:14 pm
by paddy no 11
So looks like they agreed an off ramp for iran
Re: Iran war
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2025 9:15 pm
by paddy no 11
Hopefully this deescalate and gaza is the main news item
Re: Iran war
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2025 12:40 am
by Puja
paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 23, 2025 9:14 pm
So looks like they agreed an off ramp for iran
Am I right in saying that, so far, the only source of information we have on that is Trump? Cause it wouldn't be the first time that he'd arbitrarily declared that he'd singlehandedly arranged a ceasefire in a conflict where one or both sides hadn't actually agreed to it and just kept going.
paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 23, 2025 9:14 pm
So looks like they agreed an off ramp for iran
Am I right in saying that, so far, the only source of information we have on that is Trump? Cause it wouldn't be the first time that he'd arbitrarily declared that he'd singlehandedly arranged a ceasefire in a conflict where one or both sides hadn't actually agreed to it and just kept going.
Puja
Of course you're right........Iran and Israel hard at it
paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 23, 2025 9:14 pm
So looks like they agreed an off ramp for iran
Am I right in saying that, so far, the only source of information we have on that is Trump? Cause it wouldn't be the first time that he'd arbitrarily declared that he'd singlehandedly arranged a ceasefire in a conflict where one or both sides hadn't actually agreed to it and just kept going.
Puja
Of course you're right........Iran and Israel hard at it
{Sigh} Hadn't checked the news this morning and had been hopeful that I was wrong, given the news last night that Iran's strike against the US was telegraphed in advance and looked performative. Fucking Donald, getting my hopes uk that he'd actually been competent for once.
Am I right in saying that, so far, the only source of information we have on that is Trump? Cause it wouldn't be the first time that he'd arbitrarily declared that he'd singlehandedly arranged a ceasefire in a conflict where one or both sides hadn't actually agreed to it and just kept going.
Puja
Of course you're right........Iran and Israel hard at it
{Sigh} Hadn't checked the news this morning and had been hopeful that I was wrong, given the news last night that Iran's strike against the US was telegraphed in advance and looked performative. Fucking Donald, getting my hopes uk that he'd actually been competent for once.
Puja
And it's off again, he lost his cool with Netanyahu big time
Hopefully for everyone it stays off and focus switches to gaza and ending that
What will bibi do next to keep his eternal war running?
Re: Iran war
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2025 4:22 pm
by Mikey Brown
This is awesome on multiple levels.
Can't even be arsed with the pretence of presidential decorum anymore, openly talking about Israel like it's a US military outpost, and blows the lid off his own nonsense statements (and general rhetoric) about ceasefires being called.
Re: Iran war
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2025 4:26 pm
by morepork
Bibi will do anything he likes because he has a direct line to an idiot overriding his own intelligence data. It’s beyond repugnant that the safety on civilians is at the whim of two deeply flawed people. Diplomatic nuance is in the backseat . Fuckiing disgusting priority.
Re: Iran war
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2025 4:36 pm
by paddy no 11
Not sure this has played out that well for bibi, trump appears to have drawn the line and there's no way American boots will hit the ground. Iran knows that now and maybe has made off with uranium and centrifuges from fardow. If there was an existential threat before then it's still there
Europe and the germans in particular need to cop the fuck on and bring an end to the murder in gaza
Re: Iran war
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2025 5:52 pm
by Son of Mathonwy
paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 24, 2025 4:36 pm
Not sure this has played out that well for bibi, trump appears to have drawn the line and there's no way American boots will hit the ground. Iran knows that now and maybe has made off with uranium and centrifuges from fardow. If there was an existential threat before then it's still there
Europe and the germans in particular need to cop the fuck on and bring an end to the murder in gaza
Starmer's got that all sorted. He just says it's 'intolerable'. That's it, nothing else needs doing.
'Intolerable' has joined 'two-state solution' and 'de-escalation' as terms that used to mean something but are now just conversation-stoppers and perfectly acceptable substitutes for action.
paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 24, 2025 4:36 pm
Not sure this has played out that well for bibi, trump appears to have drawn the line and there's no way American boots will hit the ground. Iran knows that now and maybe has made off with uranium and centrifuges from fardow. If there was an existential threat before then it's still there
Europe and the germans in particular need to cop the fuck on and bring an end to the murder in gaza
Starmer's got that all sorted. He just says it's 'intolerable'. That's it, nothing else needs doing.
'Intolerable' has joined 'two-state solution' and 'de-escalation' as terms that used to mean something but are now just conversation-stoppers and perfectly acceptable substitutes for action.
Thank fuck for that; I was worried he wasn't going to do anything, but I'm sure Bibi will stop immediately, now that he knows he risks mild censure with no other consequences.
Have they though? I've yet to see any credible institution that was suggesting this before the Israeli strikes - the IAEA inspections noted that they have got 400kg of highly refined uranium and that that was a problem, but that there was no evidence that they were progressing towards gaining the technology to turn that into a bomb. While I agree that the Iranian regime are fucking awful, there's no evidence that they were doing anything with their refined uranium apart from flaunting it as revenge for Trump torpedoing the treaty because it was Obama's/as leverage to encourage the US to negotiate with them.
This is the crux of it. Even if Iran actually were, "just months away from becoming a nuclear power", then who elected Israel the world's policeman - for that matter, who elected them judge, jury, and executioner? If they have conclusive evidence of an imminent nuclear threat, then present it publically to the UN and seek a resolution - they probably wouldn't get it with the mess that is the Security Council at present, but I want to hear a lot more proof that Iran is developing a bomb than, "Bibi finds it politically expedient for that to now be the truth".
There is also the argument that it's incredibly high-handed to unilaterally declare them unworthy of having a bomb. As noted, Iran's government is a disgrace who has made no secret of wanting to destroy Israel, but they're also not martyrs - nuking Israel (assuming it even got through the Iron Dome) would be a victory for about 20 minutes until the USA levelled the entire country and I have no doubt that the Ayatollah prefers the idea of a long life in power to being invaded, overthrown and shot. It could be argued that "Death to Israel and death to America" is a slogan rather than a mission statement nowadays.
That's very much not to say that I would approve of Iran having a nuke in any shape or form, but "having enriched uranium" does not equal "about to have a nuclear weapon" and, "about to have a nuclear weapon" does not equal "about to use a nuclear weapon". Israel's cassus belli is based around the risk of the latter and I am very far from convinced it's valid.
Puja
Refining uranium past the single figure levels needed for civil use is a huge red flag. There is only one reason to do that. So there’s definitely intention to create a bomb. The other technology isn’t that hard now for competent engineers.
I literally mentioned two other reasons in my post: 1) Because they can and it's retribution against Trump for tearing up the 2015 treaty (which they were complying with, according to every authority), 2) to use as a negotiating tool against the West to get sanctions removed - they don't have much leverage generally, and having a stockpile of enriched uranium can act as both carrot and stick: the promise to get rid of it for sanctions relief or the threat to sell it to bad actors if sanctions relief isn't forthcoming. Having enriched uranium isn't a great sign, but they've had a stockpile of some sort pretty much since 2019 and neither bomb nor exploded Israel has occurred, suggesting that either it's harder to build a nuke than you think or there does exist more than one reason to do that.
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 7:06 pm
Israel hasn’t said it intends to be the world’s policeman. Just prevent Iran having a bomb which might be used on it. Hence the term self defence, which is being pushed to the limits of its validity.
It has unilaterally declared someone guilty of a crime (which they themselves have previously committed), without providing any evidence, and then immediately shot them on the basis that they looked threatening. Sounds like a policeman to me.
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 7:06 pmI think you’re being naive in relation to the potential martyrdom of Iranian leadership. These are the people who grew up idolising children being marched into minefields. They might wish to die too soon but if that’s the price of extracting a huge price from Israel is not bed against them making that call.
I agree that there’s plenty of room for doubt about Israeli decision making right now, and the legality of it.
I will admit to not understanding the mindset of martyrs in general, but I'm not willing to credit the evil fuckers in charge of Iran with much actual piety. "Death to Israel" comes with an unspoken, yet fairly solid, "while we keep living" - they want to win, not have everybody lose. I don't see anything in the Iranian government that suggests they would be keen on mutually assured destruction, let alone the uneven trade-off of destroying one Israeli city in return for the complete levelling of their country.
Probably why there has been no Iranian nuke, despite the material - they don't want to raise the stakes to the extent that they become enough of a problem to be invaded.
Puja
Huge gamble to suggest that a state actor which promoted suicide bombings wouldn’t be interested in using a nuke because of possible retribution. That’s a huge risk to base a national strategy on.
Acknowledging that you don’t have the martyr mindset (a good thing) it’s a huge risk to consider actions by those who do against your own moral context. The legality of those action I think we can all agree is highly questionable. The practical aspect, I think is harder to judge. How would history, or your population, judge you if a hostile power which had avowed to destroy you, actually used a nuclear device? The risk decision making is easier when your not in the fallout zone.
