Iran, the Red Sea, and the West (tm).

[Thorgalaeg]

It depends how devout a believer in the words of Israel one is, when it comes to the subject of Iran. According to Israel, Iran was just a nudge away from getting the bomb during each one of the past 40 years.

1984: reports emerged (including in Hebrew media) quoting Israeli officials claiming Iran was “months away” from acquiring a nuclear bomb.
1992: Israeli Parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu claimed Iran was 3 to 5 years from developing a nuclear weapon.
2006: Mossad head Meir Dagan warned Iran could have a bomb by 2009.
2012: Prime Minister Netanyahu gave his famous “red line” speech at the UN, claiming Iran was a year or less from obtaining nuclear capability.

Takes a faithful individual to believe this narrative for so long.

The same way Iran keeps saying it is all for peaceful purposes, yet I haven't ever see any country 40 years enriching uranium to feed a nuclear reactor. In fact you only need 3% enrichment for that. They undoubtedly have reached that 3% since decades ago.

Takes an even more faithful individual to believe the Irani narrative for even a second.

 

[Moriarte]

The same way Iran keeps saying it is all for peaceful purposes, yet I haven't ever see any country 40 years enriching uranium to feed a nuclear reactor.

You are ill informed:

France has enriched uranium for power since the 1960s.

India and Brazil have long-running uranium enrichment programs tied to civilian and strategic interests.

In fact you only need 3% enrichment for that. They undoubtedly have reached that 3% since decades ago.

Iran has enriched uranium to different levels at different times, depending on agreements, sanctions, and national policy. They have gone beyond 3% only after the U.S. exited the JCPOA in 2018.

Most light-water reactors use 3-5% enriched uranium. Iran has claimed needs for up to 20% enrichment for medical isotope production (e.g., Tehran Research Reactor), which is plausible and not automatically proof of weaponization.

 

[banzay13]

Btw, so much talking about Russia using nukes when it is not really threatened by NATO in any existential way except in Putin's imperial aspirations, but I don't see anybody talking about the possibility of Israel nuking Iran to the pleistocene if it feels threatened by Iran getting nukes or whatever, which unlike Russia would be a real threat for israel very existence, being a tiny country surrounded by enemies and such.

Shouldn't therefore this attack on Iran be considered a preventive measure to avoid further escalation including nuclear escalation? I mean, the same argument that Putin and simpathizers are continuously and fallaciously waving to justify Ukraine invasion, but this time for real.

The threat of using Nukes was to not let NATO join hot war at Ukraine part. If we imagine, that NATO could joint Iran side against Israel - no doubt what then IDF Nukes could be targeting all military base in ME in Europe

 

[Thorgalaeg]

You are ill informed:

France has enriched uranium for power since the 1960s.

India and Brazil have long-running uranium enrichment programs tied to civilian and strategic interests.



Iran has enriched uranium to different levels at different times, depending on agreements, sanctions, and national policy. They have gone beyond 3% only after the U.S. exited the JCPOA in 2018.

Most light-water reactors use 3-5% enriched uranium. Iran has claimed needs for up to 20% enrichment for medical isotope production (e.g., Tehran Research Reactor), which is plausible and not automatically proof of weaponization.

And Brasil, India and France have a lot of commercial nuclear power plants to feed. Iran on the other hand not so much.

The excuse they found to justify up to the 20% is funny at best, you don't need a whole nuclear program to get medical isotopes, only tiny quantities are needed and they are commercially available. Or do you think there is not radiology services in hospitals at not nuclear countries?

And not enough excuse either, According to UN's IAEA Iran is already in the 60%:

Director General Grossi’s Statement to UNSC on Situation in Iran | IAEA

Statement to the United Nations Security Council on the Situation in Iran by IAEA Director General, Rafael Mariano Grossi.

www.iaea.org

Iran enrichment is for weapons, that is a well stablished fact, face it. Of course you have chosen to believe Khomeini heir over United Nations. Your fault.

 

[Arwon]

For the record, I assume Iran is developing nuclear weapons. I just don't see how any of the opposing nuclear armed nations have any standing at all to complain about them trying to attain some element of parity in an already nuclear region. It's an extremely rational thing for them to do. And I certainly don't think either there should be a shooting war over the question. No proliferation would be better, but that horse has bolted here.

 

[Senethro]

If you don't want your enemy to do a particular thing, you probably shouldn't create a situation where it looks like their best/only option.

 

[Arwon]

The situation also seems objectively less dangerous a nuclear scenario than like, India and Pakistan. I'm just not buying an essentially normal and stable state like Iran as some special risk. Conservatism and repression do not, by themselves, create nuclear risk and none of it justifies a shooting war.

 

[Senethro]

I really don't know about calling Iran normal or stable, but the war that the crazies are thirsting for would be like Iraq squared set in comparable territory to Afghanistan, and done at the behest of a bad ally.

All the options are bad.

 

[Ordnael]

I'm just not buying an essentially normal and stable state like Iran as some special risk.

Normal!?
A islamic fundamentalist theocracy hell bent on annihilating the jews either through direct attack (less preferable) or through funding of terrorist organisations (way more preferable towards arguing plausible deniability) like Hamas and Hezbollah!?

Stable!? The Mahsa Amini protest are a joke to you!?

Mahsa Amini protests - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I will never understand the why the communist, left radical are so in love with a regimes/religions that are deadly towards fundamental civic rights of people namely free women and the gay! The very same flags they wave on western nations for virtue points! Talk about bigotry!

And that's why I really don't care about your boos on me and like minded people, I've seen what makes you cheer and it's gross!

 

[Arwon]

Normal!?
A islamic fundamentalist theocracy hell bent on annihilating the jews either through direct attack (less preferable) or through funding of terrorist organisations (way more preferable towards arguing plausible deniability) like Hamas and Hezbollah!?

Stable!? The Mahsa Amini protest are a joke to you!?

Mahsa Amini protests - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I will never understand the why the communist, left radical are so in love with a regimes/religions that are deadly towards fundamental civic rights of people namely free women and the gay! The very same flags they wave on western nations for virtue points! Talk about bigotry!

And that's why I really don't care about your boos on me and like minded people, I've seen what makes you cheer and it's gross!

This is very over the top

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Unlike Ukraine-Russia where it is easy to discern what side is on the right, (it is UKRAINE for the clueless ones here) Israel-Iran is one of those conflicts where you can't chose a side. As a sovereign country Iran is entitled to develop whatever they want to develop, otoh if I lived in Israel I would like such regime that also claims its ultimate goal is to destroy me to be bombed to the stone age. That is obviating a number of other questions as if Israel should exist to begin with, or the legitimacy of a crazy fundamentalist regime... That is ME for you.

Personally I would like both sides to lose.

 

[Arwon]

I think just quietly there's also plenty of people demanding Iran be destroyed. It's been borderline the consensus elite opinion in the western world over the last few days. None of the stuff anyone is saying about anyone touches the sides of justifying an active war. Rhetoric between mutually hostile states is very common, it rarely explains or justifies full-on wars.

 

[Senethro]

A thing that somewhat perturbed me is that for the Iraq war, they went over the top on generating propaganda to gain consent.

Now they're only somewhat trying. They expect compliance.

Doesn't that worry you a bit?

 

[Arwon]

Yeah somehow elite consensus is stronger and the media coverage is very hollow and supplicant, and nobody is trying very hard to build a case.

And in 2003 there were massive protests (I met my wife at one! ) this time not really. Maybe if Trump tries to send ground troops that would trigger something, but I dunno.

On the other hand this is more of a mutual conflict than 2003 and at greater parity, at least until Trump gets involved. Maybe that's having an influence.

 

[Snowygerry]

I think just quietly there's also plenty of people demanding Iran be destroyed. It's been borderline the consensus elite opinion in the western world over the last few days. None of the stuff anyone is saying about anyone touches the sides of justifying an active war. Rhetoric between mutually hostile states is very common, it rarely explains or justifies full-on wars.

They need not be destroyed, just stop supplying the Russian army, practicing hostage diplomacy, and if at all possible stop plotting terrorist attacks in Europe.

They really went out of their way the be a nuisance to all, let's be honest.

 

[Arwon]

That's really just conventional state vs state international skulduggery. I mean sowing foreign violence and selling stuff to distasteful governments pretty much describes India, China or the United States too. (Possibly only to a limited extent in the case of China and foreign violence, can't think of anything offhand there)

We're trying to justify a shooting war and mass bombardment here, potentially with consequences as dire and long reaching as what happened in 2003. The question here isn't "do we want to give the Tehran regime a hug and big sloppy kiss", it is "does any of this mean a massive war with unknown consequences is a good idea".

 

[r16]

nobody wants Israel to come up too much justified . Return of the gas chambers might meet harder resistance in that case .

 

[Senethro]

nobody wants Israel to come up too much justified . Return of the gas chambers might meet harder resistance in that case .

Who is "nobody", here?

 

[Snowygerry]

That's really just conventional state vs state international skulduggery. I mean sowing foreign violence and selling stuff to distasteful governments pretty much describes India, China or the United States too.

We're trying to justify a shooting war and mass bombardment here, potentially with consequences as dire and long reaching as what happened in 2003.

Just trying to see the sliver lining of what is no doubt a dark cloud. There is advantage to every disadvantage.

It would obviously be best if people just would just stop killing eachother alltogether, but that seems unlikely.

 

[Arwon]

Just trying to see the sliver lining of what is no doubt a dark cloud. There is advantage to every disadvantage.

It would obviously be best if people just would just stop killing eachother alltogether, but that seems unlikely.

I think if this goes too much further it's going to be a replay of 2003 and all its consequences, except without the quick fall of the target regime.