Does anyone here really take issue with Israel dismantling Iran's nuclear weapons program?

[PeaceWave]

I ask this question because I wonder if people have really played out in their minds what a nuclear armed Iran would have looked like and how it would have affected not just Israel, but also the rest of the world. It's bad enough for the world to have one rogue nuclear armed state in North Korea, constantly directing nuclear threats at South Korea and the United States. What would the world have looked like with a second rogue nuclear armed state in Iran, constantly directing nuclear threats at Israel and the U.S.? More worrisome is the question of whether Iran would have shared nuclear weaponry with its Hamas and Houthi allies. Nuclear proliferation among nation states is one thing. But, nuclear proliferation extending to terrorist organizations? These are all reasonable questions to ask given Iran's 45 year history of state sponsored violence and terrorism. While I generally respect any nation's right to self-determination, I cannot in any way rationalize Iran's desire for nuclear weapons. Trust between nations, like trust between people, must be earned. And, I see nothing in Iran's recent history to suggest that Iran could have been trusted with the enormous responsibility that goes with possessing nuclear weapons.

&list=RDFpu5a0Bl8eY&start_radio=1

[Prairie Gates]

1. The lack of self-awareness is fucking stunning

[brush]

103. Agreed. Warmonger Netanyahu was losing favor with world allies in his ethnic cleansing and starvation...

bomb strikes and killing in Gaza so he changes course and attacks Iran.

Voila, who could be against that?

It's worked so far. But what's the end game, continuous war will not keep him out of jail for his corruption in Israel forever.

[Butterflylady]

105. It has never been about Iran having nukes...It's about regime change.

Netanyaho has been salivating that for 30 years. He visions that Israel will be in control of all the Middle East. Syria, Lebanon, The West Bank, Palestine, Yemen, he sees them all under control by Israel.

[brush]

109. I get you, similar to Putin and his Vladivostok to the Atlantic wet dream.

Netanyahu dreams big too. If only it were that simple, but there are too many dangerous actors in the Middle East with lots of oil money for some not to push back.

[OrlandoDem2]

2. No. But if we can help Israel eliminate nukes from Iran and possibly impose regime change then we can help Ukraine.

Why are we aiding Israel fight one threat but not Ukraine.

[Delarage]

32. It sort of helps Ukraine

Since Iran (a terrorist state) has been building drones for Russia (another terrorist state) where, unfortunately, our "leader" gets his marching orders from. But I agree we should be doing a lot more to help Ukraine

[Cuthbert Allgood]

64. Last time we got into regime change with Iran, we fucked it up pretty badly.

But, yeah, let's let the orange one take a shot at it.

[Bettie]

107. Right? I'm sure it will all go well

with him and Netanyahu making the decisions. What could possibly go wrong?

[maxrandb]

67. Iran is a rogue state because of it's leadership

Kind of like, I was never concerned with the United States, or Israel having nukes, until Bibi and Dipshit Donnie came to power.

Oh, that's right, we have "checks and balances" right?

[Dorian Gray]

69. I have zero problem

with Israel taking out the Iranian nukes. Nor do I have a problem Aiding Ukraine in their fight against Russia.

[atreides1]

102. Okay

Where exactly is the evidence of Iran having nukes?

[Dorian Gray]

114. This article

shows us the public evidence for and against the idea that they are close to nukes: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn840275p5yo

[Cuthbert Allgood]

118. What if Iran doesn't have nukes?

You OK with a bombing just in case? Because the don't have nukes. And Bibi has been saying they are a couple weeks away for decades, so let's not listen to the guy who's full of shit.

[Crunchy Frog]

80. I'm hoping it will at least help Ukraine indirectly.

Considering how many drones and missiles they've been supplying to Moscow, as well as their role as a conduit for the sale of oil and gas. I hope for a new regime that won't blindly support russia.

As for the rest, the people of Ukraine have never been seen as being as valuable as the people or nation of Israel. People here constantly talk about Israel's "right to exist", but nobody seems to think that Ukraine has the same right. Maybe everyone just shits themselves whenever Putin makes a nuclear threat. If nuclear threats are the main issue, then I can definitely understand not wanting Iran to get them.

[Johnny2X2X]

3. Trust between nations

We don't trust Israel under Netanyahu! No one should. We don't trust Iran either, but we had a deal with them that they were abiding by that Trump pulled us out of. Our own intelligence is saying they weren't close to a nuke. This is BiBi and Trump bombing someone in an effort to consolidate more power for themselves.

[karynnj]

37. Add in that Netanyahu pushed Trump to leave Iran deal

Also, Netanyahu was one of neo con voices arguing that regime change in Iraq would make the middleeast safer.

[comradebillyboy]

52. On the other hand Iran was financing and supplying

just about every terrorist group in the Middle East and actively interfering with shipping in the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. Israel was justifiably pissed at Iranian proxies continually firing missiles into Israel and all the other terrorist acts aimed at them over many years.

[AZProgressive]

84. Except for the Wahabbi ones

Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Harem, etc. If any country backed them it was Saudi Arabia and maybe other Arabian Peninsula countries.

Iran supports Shia groups but not the ones that attacked the US on 9/11 or any other wahabbi terror groups which are actually enemies of Iran.

[comradebillyboy]

91. The Gulf Arabs of the Sunni persuasion do

support much of the Islamic terrorism in Africa, but our news media gives precious little coverage to events in Africa so we don't hear much about it.

[Crunchy Frog]

81. "Our own intelligence" is Tulsi Gabbard. She's Putin's eyes, ears, nose, and throat, and not trustworthy.

I don't personally have a problem with interrupting Iran's current activities.

[womanofthehills]

116. So what's your take on this???

(Sounds like Russia will enter war)

Russia urgently warns Israel: "Hands off Busher!"

The Russian Foreign Ministry has again condemned the Israeli attacks, this time issuing a strong warning regarding the Bushehr nuclear power plant, where Russian technicians and experts are currently stationed.

"We are seriously concerned about the safety of Russian experts working at the Bushehr facility. Israel must immediately stop its illegal and provocative attacks," Maria Zakharova said.

If Tel Aviv thought it could bomb Iran's nuclear infrastructure with impunity, that's a stumbling block. Bushehr is not Natanz. It's a joint Iranian-Russian energy project. And Russia has just made it clear: any attack that endangers its citizens is not an Israeli matter, but a direct threat to Russian national security.

Link to tweet

?s=46&t=YZgyyp4w_z7vW3neKxa6cQ

[Crunchy Frog]

117. Russia is constantly making empty threats, and Maria Zakharova is a notorious drunken bufoon.

That said, I think russia might be well advised to evacuate its citizens from a war zone before they get injured or killed.

If russia was so very concerned about the illegality of attacking nuclear facilities, then I expect it wouldn't have bombed, occupied, and threatened to blow up the Zaporizhia NPP, or periodically bombed the remains of Chernobyl, after occupying it and giving its soldiers radiation sickness at the start of the war. They like having their cake and eating it too, though.

This is an illustration of how russia uses its own nuclear status to blackmail and threaten the rest of the world, and it has largely been working, which is why they are still in Ukraine, and still bombing the fuck out of it. More decisive support for Ukraine would have likely ended that war a couple of years ago. It suggests to me that letting Iran gain nuclear weapons is probably not a good idea.

Basically, I think russia can go fuck itself.

The account that you have their is heavily pro-russian, pro-Putin, and pro-war, and I've had him blocked for a very long time.

If you're asking whether this makes me concerned, the answer is no.

[rampartd]

4. my issue is with removing the intelligence assets who might contradict israel's assessment

[MarineCombatEngineer]

5. Great, great thread.

I, for one, do not oppose Israel destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program, it would be a disaster of huge proportions to have a nuclear armed Iran, an Iranian leadership that has vowed to eliminate the State of Israel from the face of planet earth.

Thanks for this thread, it's thought provoking.

[DavidDvorkin]

6. But it's Israel doing it, so for many DUers, that automatically makes it a terrible thing.

[uponit7771]

30. Way too many people in DU don't trust BB or Trump to do the right thing and

... too many do.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

31. I sure as hell don't

and I don't trust the Mullahs in Iran.

[uponit7771]

35. Right, the imenent WMD threat was used in the 2000s with more trustworthy characters and they lied then....

...these guys are overt crooks so I them even less than Bush 2

[choie]

68. Way too many people on DU don't trust BB or Trump to do the right thing?

Too many? Are you saying we should trust them? I don't get it.

[AloeVera]

7. The world has two rogue nuclear-armed states.

Now imagine being an Arab/Muslim person in the Middle East reading what you just wrote....

[sir pball]

50. Four. There are *four* rogue nuclear states.

India, Pakistan, and North Korea have all declared nuclear capacity, and ofc Israel has them. None of them are recognized under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as states that may possess nuclear weapons,…although that's kind of a moot point since India, Pakistan and Israel never ratified the Treaty, and NK withdrew before their first test.

Just FYI.

[JanMichael]

55. You forgot USA...

[sir pball]

62. Sorry, but just no. We are one of the five "legal" nuclear states.

We are a signatory to the NPT, as an acknowledged nuclear weapons state.

We admit we have weapons, and that we agree some other states also have weapons, but that no other states (the vast majority of who have signed the Treaty) will not develop or build weapons…and most of them have chosen to go along.

Funny thing is, out of the four rogue states that didn't sign on, there's MAYBE one (India) for whom having weapons is a legitimate deterrent – none of the rest have the capacity to launch a first strike while retaining the capacity to launch an effective second strike.

[Crunchy Frog]

82. And russia. Which, so far, has actively been threatening nuclear attacks against other countries.

As well as using it's status as a nuclear power to carry out a massive war of aggression, largely with impunity.

[AloeVera]

57. Thanks, just read up on it.

India and Pakistan have openly admitted to having nuclear weapons and at least Indiacis pursuing a pilicy of non-proliferation. Their reason for not joining is the treaty divides countries into haves and have nots, and is discriminatory.

Israel pursues a policy of deliberate ambiguity - maybe we have them, maybe not - but nevertheless argues the "exceptionality" of its case.

[egduj]

60. Good post.

[Bmoboy]

8. How about dismantling Israel's nuclear weapons program?

While you're at it.

[travelingthrulife]

13. This x 1000.

[AloeVera]

23. Yeah, that never comes up..

Illegal and rogue to boot.

So a rogue nuclear-armed nation - currently committing genocide btw - that scoffs at the NPT, attacks a non-nuclear armed nation that is part of the NPT and was abiding by it until sabotaged by the same rogue nation, then the rogue nation claims it is protect itself and the world from the non-rogue, non-nuclear armed nation.

When it comes to all things Israel, black is white and hypocrisy and double standards are presented as defending Western values and civilization.

[sir pball]

51. So why not dismantle the other illegal, rogue programs?

I mean, no sensible person can think North Korea should have weapons. Probably easier to disarm India and Pakistan though, they would at least theoretically be responsive to diplomatic means, rather than force. All three of them have also scoffed at the NPT, should they not face the same consequences?

[AloeVera]

56. I'm all for that!!

I'd go further and make all nukes illegal.

Have Elon send them off to Mars safely. With personal supervision on the journey.

[NoRethugFriends]

63. Make them illegal? Why didn't anyone else think of that????

[AloeVera]

71. Lots of people thought of it but it's still not in effect.

Because - by no coincidence - the five nuclear-armed states oppose a comprehensive Nuclear Weapons Convention that would actually make possession of nuclear weapons illegal and ban them.

[NoRethugFriends]

115. How in the world would you ban them?

Did you see the movie La La Land?

[AloeVera]

119. We live in a M.A.D., M.A.D. world...

Because of exactly that kind of thinking.

No worries, sit back and enjoy my recommenation for you:

Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

It's hilarious.

[NoRethugFriends]

120. Wow. So you think magical thinking works. Some of us live in the real world.

I have seen the movie a few times, and love it.
You go see The Phoenician Scheme.

[AloeVera]

121. You're right. We never should have gone for civil rights, banning land mines or apartheid.

Unless it has a great chance of success right away, we should not attempt it at all.


Of course some people might not agree with the goals of the "lost causes" including nuclear disarmament, in which case they might ridicule or discourage those who do.

Have you seen Threads?

[Crunchy Frog]

83. It's a nice idea, but I don't see how it could possibly be enforced.

[ILikePie92]

54. YES!

X1000!

[jcmaine72]

70. That would require consistency and that one standard be applied to all nations equally.

However, altering the current approach, where the rules apply to some, but never to one nation in particular, is unequivocally considered anti----well, you know.

[The Roux Comes First]

9. I Don't Have Any Easy Answer Here (as there likely are none), But Thought Someone Needed to Break the Silence

At one time, quite a number of current nuclear powers, if not all, were likely deemed "rogue states" by at least some other nations. Prominent in my mind is Pakistan, but I suspect the US will never be entirely forgiven for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A long history of relative restraint might ease concerns, but context and history are important considerations.

I would hate to have Iran armed with nuclear devices. I also hate provocative military actions, a la Russia, especially when Israel is already tarred with still having a criminal in command, not unlike a superpower I can think of.

Our own felon certainly did not help when he abandoned the diplomatic approach taken previously towards Iran's nuclear aspirations.

[Deep State Witch]

10. Not Me

Sorry, people who think that Israel is automatically evil because they're doing this to helpless brown people. Iran is anything BUT helpless. They have a history going back to 1979 of stirring up trouble in the Middle East, specifically regarding Israel. Mostly because the previous Iranian regime under the Shah was cordial towards Israel. Iran is a notorious bad actor in the region. They have successfully exported their brand of Shia Islamic Fundamentalism to other places, including the Houthis, HAMAS, and in Lebanon. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has a well-funded propaganda arm that generates a lot of sympathy for Iran and its clients.

I feel bad for the Iranian people, who have wanted to be free of the Ayatollahs for many years now. I just wish that the US wasn't involved. But here we are. As for the Khamenei regime, fuck them. I hope he gets crushed by a falling building and dies horribly.

[womanofthehills]

33. I think it's Israel bombing Yemen, Lebanon, Seria, Iran & 0ccupied Palestine area

Israel is the last country I want to have nuclear weapons.

[meadowlander]

11. How you do it actually matters.

We had a deal with Iran which Trump tore up. That deal was how you do it.

If Iran doesn't keep the deal, get a UN task force or a broad coalition to take out their capacity by force.

What I don't agree with is that any one country has a right to preemptively bomb another country because it says the other country is a threat.

Also, Israel assassinating the leader of Iran isn't going to lead to the kind of regime change it thinks it will.

There's a large movement in Iran for something different but that's never going to be happen if there's a perception that the West is dictating who their new leadership will be. If anything this will lead to retrenchment and set back the reform movement by decades.

[tonekat]

74. I saw a chart this evening

It showed Iran's nuclear activity before, during, and after trump pulled us out of the accord.

There was moderate activity before the deal, no measurable amount during it, and after trump took us out, it ramped up on a steep curve until the present.

We will pay if we use our weapons to do Israel's battle for them. I'd rather see Israel force them to the table and get IAEA people to go down where the centrifuges are and report back. Take steps to prevent weapons grade product.

[Cosmocat]

86. T H I S - two thoughts

First, I saw somewhere a cut up of all times over the last 30 years Bibi has publicly asserted that Iran was within a year or so of having nuclear strike capabilities, close to a dozen times going back into the 90s.

And, both he and DT (and the R party) played active roles in blowing up the diplomatic measures that BHO put into place to get a handle of this situation, without having to use the military.

Of course I don't want Iran to have these capabilities, but the issue here is they literally have no credibility on this, we can't know if they were actually that close and their desire to force a military confrontation is apparent.

That is all we know for a fact here.

[Klarkashton]

12. It's not stopping there.

[unblock]

14. Several things are off here

Limited, targeted strikes on nuclear program activities have been done before and Israel can get away with it. If that's all it was going to be, and Israel was taking the heat for it, we. Like live with it.

But:
-Israel seems to be going too far already
-America could have stayed in the shadows, supporting Israel and only indirectly being involved with Iran. There was no need for Donnie to rush in to take the blame. There used to be always blowback from direct American involvement in such things.
-Donnie id talking regime change and unconditional surrender and killing their Iran's leader. There's zero basis for this and it's seriously stupid and dangerous.
-there was nowhere near the level of diplomatic efforts needed here.

These are all "are there any adults in the room" errors.

[travelingthrulife]

15. Dismantling it?Is that what they are calling bombing both military and civilian sites?

There was an agreement, Bibi has worked tirelessly to destroy it.

[mcar]

16. Apparently some do

[uponit7771]

28. Yeah, the ones who don't trust BB or Trump one ounce

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Nena's pro-peace song is relevant to your position how?

Do you post it as a counterpoint to your "it's OK to bomb" paragraph?

If Israel had just bombed nuclear sites, things would feel a lot safer. But Netanyahu and Trump have got their dicks out, and are bombing cities - for instance, targeting the TV station, shouting "we control the airspace", and "we might kill Khamenei - we demand unconditional surrender".

You're ignoring the major part of what Netanyahu and Trump are doing.

[MineralMan]

18. Well, I take issue with any action that kills innocent people.

And an all-out attack against Tehran and the densely populated areas around it would result in just that.

So, I guess I have to ask exactly how the dismantling you mention will happen. Then I can answer your question.

[Ping Tung]

19. I'd even give Trump a wave if he can gert both Iran and Israel to disarm.

“It doesn't make a damned bit of difference who wins the war to someone who's dead.” Yossarian from Catch22

[LexVegas]

20. Israel hate is strong. nt

[uponit7771]

25. So is BB and Trump trust

[LexVegas]

27. We agree. nt

[Eko]

21. Except that is not what is happening.

"Now, after days of Israeli airstrikes, US intelligence officials believe that so far, Israel may have set back Iran’s nuclear program by only a matter of months, according to one of those people, a US official. Even as Israel has done significant damage to Iran’s facility at Natanz, which houses centrifuges necessary to enrich uranium, a second, heavily fortified enrichment site at Fordow has remained effectively untouched."
“That is something the United States can take out. That is something the Israelis will have a lot of difficulty doing. If this ends with Fordow intact, you could actually have a worse problem,” said McGurk. “You could actually have Iran more inclined to go to a nuclear weapon and they have that infrastructure intact.”

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/17/politics/israel-iran-nuclear-bomb-us-intelligence-years-away

[ananda]

22. The real issue is not their nuclear program, which has been halted.

It is OUR threat of using ACTUAL nukes.

That is the problem we are facing now!

[JoseBalow]

48. Someone threatened to use nukes? I missed that part.

Do you have a link?

[uponit7771]

24. ***NO ONE TRUST BB!!!*** Stop with the bad faith questions

[harumph]

26. Not particularly. Iran is a sponsor of terrorism and quite frankly,

the professional class of Tehran would get over regime change quickly if it were to happen. Just sayin. The power base of the
fundamentalists of Iran resides with a patronage system that directs $$ to the poor and uneducated, which is what the fundy Christians are trying pull here.

[Torchlight]

29. I think a large portion of the concern deals with process and methodology rather than conclusion

I doubt anyone of good will would desire any nation to possess nuclear weapons.

[EdmondDantes_]

61. This. The original question is loaded

It presumes this is the only path. At least some reports are saying this is only setting Iran back a few months. Warmongering is rarely the solution. Even less so when done by immoral actors like Trump and Netanyahu. To be fair, the same can be said about immoral leaders in Iran supporting terrorists, but the question here is about the actions related to trying to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

[question everything]

34. Immediately after Khomeini took over Iran, he declared Israel a cancerous growth that needs eliminating

The thinking, therefore, is that if someone is planning on destroying you, you’d better believe them.

[Silent Type]

36. If Iraq had nukes, george war bush would never have invaded them. I understand why countries want nukes.

I get the threat too with countries like Iran, NK.

Also realize only one country has ever nuked anyone.

[1WorldHope]

38. Rogue nation with nukes...

It only takes one crazy leader to make a nation rogue. I think since the US is the only country to use nukes on another country, that maybe the US should be on that list. And we certainly have the crazy leader.
I think that you can't compartmentalize all these issues. BiBi went way overboard on Gaza. It was not and eye for an eye. It was an eye your children. Now, he is going after Iran with the same fervor. He seems to be a very violent leader from what I can see. Don't believe for a minute that the U$ has clean hands.

[lame54]

39. Yesterdays dead Israelis might

[BannonsLiver]

40. Generally, no. But I don't approve of direct U.S. involvement either.

The upside is it’s is probably going to cause a fracture in the maga coalition. And before anyone says oh they’ll all fall in line, let me just say, no, they won’t.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

44. You're right, they most certainly will not,

I read numerous right wing websites and almost universally, they vehemently oppose any US involvement in the Israel/Iran war.

[BannonsLiver]

46. Yep. And that's particularly true of the young broccoli head male voters who supported him last year.

[Gore1FL]

41. I think it's a good idea not to unnecessarily escalate with other sovereign nations. nt

[Mike Nelson]

42. I'm conflicted...

... of course, the world is better off with a non-nuclear Iran. I also believe nations able to develop nuclear warfare have a right to and are going to do so, if they want. Looking at the current situation from Iran's view, I'd say they are likely to join the nuclear nation club, eventually. The current bombings also insure a new generation of terrorists - and none of that mixes together very well. I think Obama may have had the best approach, but there is no going back... Iran, Israel, and the US have awful leaders, presently. I don't see a way to get on a good track.

[William769]

43. A nuclear free Iran at all costs. nt

Great OP by the way.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. Israel and Iran deserve better leaders

[ShadesOfBlue]

47. I have a huge issue with it

Listening to three decades of spin by that apartheid state is nauseating. The west telling Iran what weapons it is allowed to have all the while knowing Israel has nukes….but we are not allowed to officially state that. Tiresome hypocrisy regarding Israel. They interfere in our elections with money more than all other foreign nations combined. In some American states it is illegal to criticize Israel even though those same states allow criticism of the American government. Entitled, racist settlers inhabiting land illegally despite international agreements; Israel laughs at all of it. A state that once worked closely with apartheid South Africa because it shared a similar racist mentality. Netanyahu gets camera time on all Sunday shows of every major American network whenever he wants to spin his devilish tongue; no other heads of state outside the USA gets such opportunities. Israel is a country whose presence causes just as much terrible disturbance in its region as Iran. Israel is a country that takes the tax dollars of Americans to SLAUGHTER innocents in Gaza who cannot defend themselves. The founders of modern Israel committed just as much terrorist atrocity when forming the state; just ask the British whose soldiers were slaughtered as a result of terrible actions of Zionists. Israel, under Netanyahu, convinced Bush and his gang that peace in Middle East would occur if Saddam Hussein was taken down. Look what it cost America in blood, dollars and reputation with that lie. Did Israel care? Hell, no. Now it spouts more of its accusatory warnings in regards of Iran. Why? So America can do the fighting for them. It’s always us having to do the heavy lifting for that country. Let’s not forget that Iran had signed an agreement to keep it from making a nuclear bomb during Obama’s tenure. Netanyahu was so against it he came to America without a true invite to trash Obama’s idea in front of of Congress! When Trump came into office he persuaded Trump to tear up that idea. Trump did. And now Netanyahu and Trump have the audacity to blame Iran for still having a nuclear program? That is outrageous.

Netanyahu and Trump may have actually been conspiring to make an attack against Iran even as America diplomats were pretending to be in talks with Iran. How can any nation ever trust us again? Some of you seem to not care if our rep keeps getting thrown out the window all at the behest of Israel. That nation is not an ally or a friend. Its leaders knew how corrupt Trump was but worked tirelessly to get him elected in 2024. It did not matter to them if that would ultimately hurt America, so long as it ultimately helped Israel. You know why no one has attacked North Korea? Because it has nukes. I do not blame Iran even if wanted nukes because it would be the only way to keep Israel and America at bay. And btw Iran is ran by a disturbing regime because of what America did to it in the 1950s. We created that monster.

I am so tired of Israel dictating the actions and directions of America. That country can’t win a conflict without American assistance. It’s time to cut the chord. People on this message board who have been tirelessly defending Israel for all these years may as well become an evangelical Republicans if/when America joins this war; such people will no longer be true liberal Democrats. And the price in blood and money and evaporating morality will be huge when America enters the war. This will undoubtedly lead to lone wolf terrorist attacks in our nation at the hands of Muslim Americans radicalized by the one-sidedness of American action in these conflicts. All of that for a country that PRETENDS to be a democracy. What a travesty.

[AloeVera]

49. That's not really what this is about.

Netanyahu hoodwinks the US. again.This time with a willing dummy"President".

This attack has been years in the making. Nothing pre-emptive or emergency about it. Iran was years away from having a bomb.

Destroying military bases, oil and gas infrastructure, assassinating a nuclear negotiator with the U.S., etc have nothing to do with a nuclear program. It's the assertion of power and hegemony over an enemy. But there is more.

This is about rallying the world of gullibles behind Israel once again. Netanyahu desparately needed to stave off the disapproval, sanctions and ostracism stemming from his genocidal actions in Gaza. The world was waking up.

What better way than to pose again as the saviour of the West, going after big bad Iran that is about to nuke innocent Israelis and who knows who next?

Israel canmot exist without wars and conquest.Therefore it needs impunity, the special blessing it has freely enjoyed but was in danger of losing.

Israel sees its "security" as the right to kill whomever, whenever and wherever it wants and not pay any price. It is reasserting that right in Iran and is "winning".

Though when Israel "wins" millions of brown people end up suffering. But that's just the order of things, right?

I beg people to think. Is that really right?

[ILikePie92]

53. What nuclear weapons program?

The one that even Dolt45-47's administration says didn't exist?

[Autumn]

58. Israel dismantling Iran's nuclear weapons program that United States

intelligence agencies say Iran doesn't have? That nuclear weapons program? No I don't think I do support that.

[Mountainguy]

96. That Tulsi Gabbard

Says they don't have.

Let's not pretend that she is doing anything other than repeating what Putin told her to say.

[Autumn]

97. Not just Gabbard. What Trump and Netanyahu are doing is illegal. Don''t pretend

it is. NO I do not fucking support it.

[Bread and Circuses]

59. With all respect and civility: NO!

I know this may provoke criticism or controversy, but I believe too many people are still drinking the Kool-Aid brewed by Ronald Reagan and stirred by Republican politics for over four decades.

First and foremost, I affirm Israel’s right to exist. And equally, I long for peace—for every nation, every person on this planet. People deserve shelter, nourishment, and safety. Everyone. Everywhere.

Links below.
Now, to the facts: Iran does not currently possess the capability to build a nuclear weapon. This 2023 AP article cites the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, confirming that Iran has not resumed its weapons program, despite enriching uranium.
Yet Republicans, going all the way back to Reagan, have routinely used Iran as a convenient adversary. Who can forget Senator John McCain jokingly singing “bomb Iran”? Or the troubling revelations about the October Surprise, in which Reagan’s campaign members, including Bill Casey, allegedly urged Iran to delay releasing American hostages? Let’s not pretend the Iran-Contra affair was some distant blip—it was a blatant manipulation of foreign policy for domestic gain.

Iran does not need to be destroyed. Like Cuba, it could be a potential ally. The hunger for intervention and war—this grotesque enthusiasm for bloodshed—is disturbing. Yes, Iran has supported extremist groups, and so has Saudi Arabia. But instead of scrutiny, the Saudis awarded Jared Kushner $2 billion and TACO got real estate, and crypto ventures. If we’re going to talk about alliances and influence, let’s talk about all of them.

Hard truths:

Lesson One: Ukraine and Iran never should have relinquished their nuclear deterrents. When the “big” powers—Israel, Russia, and the U.S.—act unilaterally, only nukes seem to command restraint.

Lesson Two: Had Reagan and his GOP allies not interfered in 1980, President Jimmy Carter may have secured a second term. And with that, we might have stayed the course on his visionary plan for alternative energy. Read his 1977 energy independence strategy here. If we’d followed through, we might have spared ourselves from the blood-soaked tangle of oil politics and forever patrols in the Persian Gulf.

Thank you for reading my reply.
May all beings receive loving-kindness. 🪷

Links :
Iran - no nukes

https://apnews.com/article/gabbard-trump-intelligence-iran-nuclear-program-51c8d85d536f8628870c110ac05bb518

“The country was not building a nuclear weapon, the national intelligence director told lawmakers, and its supreme leader had not reauthorized the dormant program even though it had enriched uranium to higher levels.”

Iran-Contra https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/index.htm

President Carter energy plan
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/fact-sheet-the-presidents-national-energy-program

[Zipgun]

65. Three problematic things, our history, normalizing preemptive strikes, what happens after

One- Our, the US, history in Iran specifically, but in some other countries as well, is not good. WE enabled the coup that brought the Shah to power and backed him after. That was a brutal regime as well, and the current government was the reaction to our actions. There are valid reasons for Iran to NOT like or trust us. Just as there are valid reasons for us to not like or trust Iran. And I don't like nor trust them. There are times we have struck against Iran for their actions, such as when we sunk their navy. And those aggressive actions were warranted, and yet showed restraint. There were targeted, and limited. But there have also been times when we have proven to not be trust worthy- backing out of the Nuclear deal, having presidents who prioritized bluster rather than diplomacy and backing groups that have been disruptive to the government of Iran are some examples. How many times do we get to literally play king maker in other countries? We've invaded countries and toppled governments on the behalf of fruit companies. In many, many ways we have been the good guys. Done amazing things and help people all over the world. The kind of things Musk and Trump put a stop to. But we have also NOT been the good guys in other countries. The kind of things that I do not want Trump to get a taste for.

Two- normalizing preemptive strikes is very dangerous and worry some. What is the criteria for preemptive strikes? What evidence do we need? Does every country get to do them, or just the ones we like? What repercussions should a country that engages in preemptive strikes have? How would "legitimate" preemptive strikes differ from "we are powerful so we can get away with it"? If our government voices a desire for regime change, would a preemptive strike against us be an act of war, or just them defending themselves, preemptively? Sure, nukes makes things different, but we had a deal and WE didn't live up to it. And Bibi wanted us to leave the deal. That matters also.

Three- what happens after we topple the Iranian government? Do we just leave the vacuum and hope nothing bad, like Isis 2.0, comes out of it? Do we put troops on the ground? We own what comes after toppling a government. And we have not had the best results recently with what comes after. Do we remake ourselves in Putin's image? Making puppet states when other countries don't do what we want? How should other countries view us and our actions? Both the macro and the micro "what happens after" matter a lot. And we will own it, even if we try to walk away.

This is not simple or easy. So no, I don't like that we are here. I don't like the possibility of us finally granting Bibi's wish of our getting into a war with Iran. I'm kind of tired of feeling like we are not Israel's friend and ally but rather Bibi's stooge and patsy. I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but I also don't like how we got here. I think we need to make some major changes in our relationship with Israel. Not that we abandon them or that they need to be our puppet, but I don't see a lot of respect for the US in the current dynamic. How we follow through with our commitments, both to allies and adversaries, also needs some changes. Though the Native American part of me says Washington lies when it makes a treaty, I'd really like that to not be true.

[Aussie105]

89. Solid post.

America exceptionalism.
Other countries may not copy.

[ShadesOfBlue]

95. Great post

Problem is people who put Israel first over everything do not give two cents about the repercussions that could come for other countries, including our own.

[Nanjeanne]

66. So Iran has a nuclearprogram inside the state tv station and Israel found out and bombed during a live

broadcast to take out their nuke program?

Well that explains the bombing of the building when people were working inside.

[AloeVera]

73. Lol. Don't forget one of their hospitals too.

No doubt Hamas was lurking in the tunnels - oops, wrong excuse - there was a centrifuge stashed in the ICU or a nuclear scientist using the hospital staff as human shields.

Which begs the question: are there any other nations going around assassinating nuclear scientists and their families? Could Iran or any Arab nation fearful of Israel's nukes go around assassinating Israeli nuclear scientists? The howling would deafen the world. Bur for Israel - total impunity. Not even questioned, as if OF COURSE Israel has the right!!

[AZProgressive]

72. Iran was negotiating a deal with the US

Like they negotiated one with Obama which Netanyahu was against at the time. Netanyahu has been using the same line about Iran being "weeks" away to a nuclear bomb since the mid 2000s and I remember similar lies being told to lead us into a war with Iraq.

The US may have been lulling Iran into a false sense of security so Israel could attack them but based on that Iran was looking for peace & security rather than looking for a war.

In any case I want all countries to respect international law and that includes both Russia & Israel.

[iemanja]

75. Jaime Rubin says Iran doesn't have a

Nuclear weapons program, or at least they didn’t when they began negotiations with the US.

I object to this war. Justifying it is not something that Democrats should do. This is a power flex by Trump, and Bibi has tried to get the US involved in a war with Iran for decades. He undermined the nuclear negotiations, convinced Trump to withdraw from the agreement, and targeted and killed the lead negotiator. The last thing he wants is peace. This war is not in America’s interest. Defending it is unconscionable. What ever happened to morality in politics? Why on earth do you defend Trump’s policy?

[Raine]

76. Absolutely NOT ... nt

[AntiFascist]

77. Israel will do what it must to defend itself...

but a number of important Arab states have condemned Israel's bombing of Iran and if the US gets involved in a war, then this could escalate out of control.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

85. The Arab states will do nothing

None of them want a nuclear armed Iran anymore then the Israelis. Publicly they will condemn and call for a halt in Israel's attacks for public consumption. Behind the scenes many are perfectly fine with it and some may be assisting, either directly by providing intelligence, or indirectly by ignoring IDF overflights of their territory.

[AntiFascist]

108. China, Russia and North Korea form an axis that is also allied with Iran...

waging war with Iran by the US could open the door for a broader world war where this axis is then given license to attack its broader targets: China against Taiwan, Russia against NATO, North Korea against South Korea and Japan.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

111. For them to do anything they would have needed to have made preparations months ago, which would have been noticed

Especially for China. An amphibious invasion is very difficult to plan and noticeable. The amount of ships necessary to get enough men and equipment across the Taiwan Straight, accounting for inevitable losses since the Straight is fortified by Taiwan is massive. An airborne invasion could be done more sneakily, but that limits heavy equipment and landing zones.
Russia can barely deal with Ukraine, and while they do have the population to support a much larger army that would be needed to invade Nato, nothing has shown they have the will to actually raise that army. Right now they are stuck with drafting every criminal and backwater Russian they can, plus using North Koreans, instead of having to start a wide ranging draft in western Russia
North Korea is more concerned with regime stability and posturing then anything. They do not have the ability to conquer South Korea. The South Koreans know it, they know it, we know, basically everyone knows it. Can they cause a large amount of casualties? Absolutely. Will doing so basically guarantee Kim and his regime get crushed. Absolutely. China will not back them on an invasion unless its useful for China. They only reason the Chinese deal with North Korea is because they want a buffer between them and the South. They do not want a western friendly democracy directly on their border. A controlled Kim regime is preferable to that end, which is why even China gets pissy with the North Koreans when they do stupid shit.

[AntiFascist]

112. China is the wildcard in this equation...

not only could they beef up their support of Russia or North Korea, if they see an opportunity while the US is occupied in a deadly war with Iran, but they have also been making serious plans for invading Taiwan by sea:

In January, Naval News first reported the construction of new amphibious barges at Guangzhou Shipyard, in southern China.

These new barge-like Shuiqiao ships are potentially a game-changer for Beijing and provide "insight into China's integration of its military, paramilitary and civilian operations – and its plans for a potential invasion", said The Guardian.

The barges feature bridges that could be used to transport tanks and supplies over previously uncrossable land, said The Telegraph, giving them multiple fronts for an invasion and "thinning out" Taiwan's line of defence.

The likely strategy is to overwhelm Taiwan with a massive attack with little warning.

https://theweek.com/news/world-news/asia-pacific/954343/what-would-happen-china-attempt-invade-taiwan

There's much more at that link.

China is also the primary importer of Iran's oil, defying sanctions:

China, which opposes unilateral sanctions, buys some 90% of Iran's oil exports, which are mostly trans-shipped in waters off Malaysia and Singapore and rebranded as Malaysian, a trade that has been boosted as more vessels drawn by high fees replaced those under U.S. sanctions, traders and analysts have said.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-march-iranian-oil-imports-surge-us-sanctions-fears-2025-04-10/

[angrychair]

78. Let's give Peace a chance

We, as a nation, seem to have a fetish for killing brown skin people. We can't help ourselves. Also, we, very apparently, love violence. It's a simple truths.

We had a fucking deal. President Obama managed to get a deal but the Mango Mussolini fucked us. All we had to do we make the damn deal.

Don't we have enough violence here? We don't need to export it. Don't we have enough murdered school children here? We don't need to export it. We have enough crimes against humanity here. We didn't need to export it. Their new war is not about changing the government unless the new leader is an obedient lapdog for Israel and the US. Which is EXACTLY what people in Iran and everywhere else in the ME will now think. This is a fucking disaster.
In order for regime change to work it had to be done organically and carried out by the Iranian people themselves.

A war with Iran will destabilize the region for decades. Cause militants and terrorist organizations ranks to swell and put all of us in great danger.
This should have been resolved PEACEFULLY.

[Aussie105]

79. Strange how any one person, one leader, or one country can decide who deserves to have nukes, and who doesn't.

Is it 'the good guys vs the bad'?

The 'good guys' being: USA, UK, Israel.
The 'bad guys': North Korea, China, Russia, Iran.

Of course, you could get the opinion of citizens in different countries outside the US for their good/bad guy lists.
It will be different.
Whose is more valid?

Anyone want to bet on the probability of a nuclear war happening, and the few survivors sitting around saying . . . gosh, who would have predicted that would happen?

The safest situation is if no one has nukes.

[OC375]

87. No one needs nukes...

Iran least of all. They need to go.

[Emile]

88. You can't blame any country for wanting nukes.

Once your country has nukes, other countries are afraid to mess with you.

Be nice if no countries had nukes, but that will never happen.

[AStern]

90. What nuclear weapons program?

nt

[maxrandb]

92. No! Not as long as it is Israel

Last edited Wed Jun 18, 2025, 12:50 PM - Edit history (1)

But, it NEVER works out that way, does it? Just Israel? Right?

I oppose fascism in ALL forms. Bibi, Donnie Dipshit, Putin, Xi, Kim. Khamenei, Prince Bonesaw...? You name the fascist, I'll oppose them.

You?

Guess I take the "you can't just be a little fascist" approach, when deciding my daughter and son-in-law should be deployed in far off lands for regime change.

The better question would be; "is anyone here, whose children, grandchildren, or family members are serving in uniform really take issue with Israel dismantling Iran's nuclear weapons program the United States demanding regime change?

BTW - I think you need to "update" your post...ya' know, now that Donnie Dipshit is demanding "regime change" and shit?

Doesn't appear to be about WMDs now, does it?

[krawhitham]

93. US intel says they don't have nukes and Netanyahu offer no proof, this is just war hungry nobs starting another war

[the_liberal_grandpa]

94. Yes if it leads to WWIII

Obama had this fixed. The felon broke it again and now the world has to pay.

I agree that Iran should not have nuclear weapons but the criminal running the USA and Israel are the worst two you could find to solve the problem without all out war.

[indusurb]

99. How about this compromise

Iran and Israel both give up their nuclear weapons programs. Including the highly enriched uranium Israel stole from the US.

[Strelnikov_]

100. The market system will probably fill in for their needs

Last edited Wed Jun 18, 2025, 05:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Russia? Close ally.

China/India? Getting closer.

North Korea? vs. Iran? That's like saying it's OK for Charlie Manson to have a nuke, but verboten for John Gotti (ie irrational vs rational).

Of the above, my bet is on Russia. Iran supplies 1M troops for their Ukraine adventure in trade.

This has little to do with nukes. Mostly about Israel running the table, knocking Iran down a step or two (or ten) while the knocking is good.

+++

Good to see Pavulon (in spirit) is back.

[SSJVegeta]

101. Im for dismantling all nuclear programs. Not blowing up uranium in highly populated regions.

[CentralMass]

104. Do you have an issue with Israel dragging us into a war with Iran and opening us up to other blowback?

Last edited Wed Jun 18, 2025, 06:43 PM - Edit history (1)

[-misanthroptimist]

106. I'd like to see hard evidence that Iran...

...has a nuclear weapons program. Not claims by someone, not speculation, but verifiable evidence that such a program even exists (or existed prior to the bombing).

[mike_c]

110. you mean countries with a shit-ton of nukes...

...like the US and Israel have the moral standing to demand that other countries not join the club they helped start so enthusiastically? If the US and Israel want to block nuclear proliferation we need to begin with our own stockpiles first.

[MineralMan]

113. I wonder what that "dismantling" by Israel would entail, you know...

Dismantling is such an innocuous word, isn't it. How would Israel go about doing that, I wonder? How many would die during that "dismantling?"

Maybe I'll think about that for awhile.

[AloeVera]

122. The U.S. could show them.

It's dismantled 12,000 warheads in the last 20 years. No fatalities, as far as I know.