He’s not Trump, which is whom I was speaking of. And as I said the last time this came up it’s not that unusual a belief; it’s how I was taught as a child. Humans are made in God’s image, aliens are not, therefore aliens are the creations of Satan.
The bulk of Americans don’t want Trump or another government like him. Does that justify an invasion by a foreign power to depose him?
Objectively and ethically, or speaking as an unhappy American citizen whose fellow countrymen can’t seem to manage the task? Because those are two different answers.
That is a brilliant idea!
Would you put the nukes on hold for a sec while we are at it? Pleeeeaaseeee!
That sounds like a solid argument for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon as soon as possible.
Could Trump’s threats to capture Kharg Island be motivated by a desire to actually take oil from Iran? Most of what I’ve read describes it as the port from which Iran ships its oil to other countries. I assumed the oil was drilled on the mainland, then piped to the island to load it onto tankers. Taking the island would then deny Iran the ability to sell and ship their oil, but I assumed Iran would just close the pipeline so the U.S. couldn’t load the oil onto tankers bound for home, either.
But I looked it up and found a mention that oil is drilled offshore in the Persian Gulf. Is it piped directly from there to the terminal on Kharg Island? I wouldn’t put it past Trump to try to occupy the drilling platforms, too, claim the oil, and sell it as he sees fit.
There are probably a million things wrong with that plan; not least that any ships would still have to get out through the Strait of Hormuz. This is Trump we’re talking about, though. Is there any way he thinks the U.S. could come out ahead by taking Kharg Island, or is it a pure stalemate (and no one gets the oil as long as U.S. troops hold the island)?
With Trump, certainly. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that’s what Iran is thinking he intends as well.
Not that it would work; we tried that in Iraq, and they just blew up oil infrastructure until we gave up. But Trump isn’t the sort to learn from history or consider what his opponents might do. I’m fairly sure that a major component of his decision making leading to the present mess was him simply refusing to give the Iranians any agency; he’d just kill some leaders, bully them a bit and they’d roll over for him. He tends to flounder when people don’t just roll over for him.
Would Iran have to take such a drastic step? Oil flows through Kharg Island, but that’s not the source. If the U.S. occupies the Island, could Iran just turn off the taps so no oil flowed to the island? That’s what I meant by a stalemate; broken only when Iran gets the Island back, finds another way to export their oil, or the U.S. takes the oil fields and secures the Strait to let ships pass through.
He’s a man who hasn’t heard “no” said to him often enough. He has no response to it other than to lose his motherfucking mind.
And the Iranians are saying “no” a lot.
Euphonious_Polemic:
And there was a solid deal in place before Trump tore it up. Trump did not like it because it was negotiated by Obama. That’s all.
Iran had hundreds of centrifuges if not thousands. They did not allow unlimited inspection. It was a lie from day one that was paid for with airplanes flown to them filled with cash.
This is a government that fed terrorist groups all through the region and killed tens of thousands of their own citizens. Trying to portray them as anything other than a rogue nation intend on a nuclear weapon is unrealistic on your part.
iiandyiiii:
You can buy the propaganda from Trump and Netanyahu if you want, but you can’t possibly expect all of us to, can you? Iran has supposedly been on the verge of nukes since the 1980s.
There is no propaganda involved with their funding of terrorist groups in that area or the slaughter of their own people. It’s well documented. And Israel has delayed Iran’s refinement of Uranium with their Stuxnet cyber attacks on their centrifuges and assassinations of the scientists involved. Iran responded by making their own equipment and going underground. They recently admitted to 460 kg of 60% refinement of Uranium. Unlike press reports that state it takes 90% to be weaponize-able it only requires 60%.
Uranium is extremely difficult to refine. But once refined it’s much easier to build an atomic bomb with it. You can understand this from the 2 atomic bombs dropped on Japan. The first one was a Uranium “gun type” weapon. It’s design is so simple that it was never fully tested. Hiroshima was the first test detonation of the weapon. This is why they are refining Uranium and not Plutonium. It’s much easier to refine Plutonium but much harder to build a weapon with it.
Iran’s missile development has advanced to medium range missiles which was unknown until last week’s attack on Diego Garcia. They can now hit Europe with them. There’s a reason why Arab nations are partnering with the US and allowing bases in their countries. They’re scared of Iran and their regional funding and control of terrorist groups. A nuclear Iran is unthinkable and would trigger a nuclear race in the Middle East.
This is not a “Trump” thing.
Obama – NBC Sept. 30, 2013 President Barack Obama said Monday that “we take no options off the table, including military options” to make sure that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon that could further destabilize the Middle East.
Biden – Politico 06/28/2021 President Joe Biden on Monday declared that Iran would “never get a nuclear weapon on my watch,” after affirming an “iron-clad” relationship between the U.S. and Israel.
Kamala Harris – CBS Oct 8 2024 Vice President Kamala Harris said she considers Iran to be America’s “greatest adversary,”
“What we need to do to ensure that Iran never achieves the ability to be a nuclear power, that is one of my highest priorities,” she added.
Hillary Clinton - September 9, 2015 “Here’s my message to Iran’s leaders,” former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at a Brookings event today, “the United States will never allow you to acquire a nuclear weapon.” Secretary Clinton delivered her remarks on the Iran nuclear deal at Brookings in a discussion moderated by Brookings Executive Vice President Martin Indyk.
The “airplanes filled with cash” line is… hell, I’m in the wrong forum.
Where did you get the idea that I am portraying them as anything positive? What I said was (and you quoted it, so you must have read it) “And there was a solid deal in place before Trump tore it up. Trump did not like it because it was negotiated by Obama. That’s all.”
Don’t see any apologetics for Iran in there. There was a deal. And obviously you (and Trump) did not like it. So was the solution then to tear it up and let them continue with the project to enrich uranium?
There was a deal that couldn’t be verified.
Why would you expect Iran to adhere to it when they didn’t allow inspectors to go anywhere of their choosing. It had all the optimism of Neville Chamberlain. Every politician agrees that an Iran with nuclear weapons was not acceptable. It was literally only a matter of time before this occurred. They’ve admitted it’s occurred with their announcement of 60% refinement.
Israel has demonstrated a profound spy infiltration of Iran’s political, military., and scientific communities. The likelihood is high that Iran’s claim of purified Uranium has been verified. We know there were trucks loading containers of something prior to the bombing of their centrifuge facility. It’s logical it was the refined Uranium.
The open revolt by Iran’s own citizens is likely our last chance to get rid of this government. We need to capture their stock of Uranium.
This war hasn’t done shit to seriously degrade Iran’s capacity to develop nukes, in the medium term. And Iran’s winning the war. Trump went to war because he thought it would be easy and awesome and he’s surrounded by yes man clowns. There was no mission and no plan and now they’re panicking. He’ll probably declare victory and pull out within a few weeks and let Iran control Hormuz…and pretty much guarantee Iran will secretly develop nukes as a deterrent for another stupid war.
For the war to have been a miscalculation, there would have to have been some calculation.
If it turns out Israel was basically coerced by Trump to go along… well, if you are an Israeli politician, is it better to join a war you basically know you are going to lose, or to try to defy America somehow?
3 posts were merged into an existing topic: Speculation for and/or Consequences to the US and Elsewhere for Engaging in the Bombing of Iran and Other Targets
Moderating:
I’ve moved several posts that were out and out speculation about future results to the appropriate thread, spawned in response to iiandyiiii’s recent post that managed to combine historical reasons, the current situation, and future speculation into a single post. That in and of itself isn’t a problem (we admitted they’re interconnected to a degree) but the follow-ups were all speculative, thus the move.
Just a reminder to check which thread you’re in while you’re typing your response.
This is just a guidance, not a warning.
On July 14, 2015, the United States and its international negotiating partners reached an agreement with Iran on its nuclear program: the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or the Iran nuclear deal. The agreement was formally adopted on October 18, 2015, and would only go into effect after Iran completed several initial steps. As a part of the deal, Iran also agreed to implement the Additional Protocol, which is an expanded set of requirements for information and access to assist the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in its task of confirming that states are using nuclear material for solely peaceful purposes.
The JCPOA was implemented January 16, 2016 after the IAEA reported that Iran had made the necessary changes to its nuclear program and granted the IAEA the access necessary to verify the agreement. In exchange, the United States and other world powers agreed to waive nuclear-related sanctions.
In 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal.
Well, not Iranian politicians.
I don’t really understand why it’s acceptable for the US to have weapons that other countries don’t have. I can understand why it’s advantageous to the US and its erstwhile allies, but I can’t see any position based on any sort of logic.
I don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but it’s not like any of the countries who do have them can be trusted to never use them. If so, what would be the point of having them? They’re neither threat or deterrent if they’re merely radioactive paper tigers.
As for the agreement you mention, no sovereign country will allow any foreigner of any stripe to go “anywhere of their choosing.” That’s not a reasonable expectation.
But none of this explains Donald Trump’s underlying reasons for bombing. You can’t bomb somebody into an agreement: bombing makes an agreement LESS likely. You can wantonly destroy things that might be leading to nuclear weapons, but I would postulate that even targeted bombing is less likely to curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions than international inspections under Obama’s agreement, even with its limitations.
And other widely spouted truths: