The 2025 Israel vs Iran and geopolitical implications thread

Politics & Elections
1

(As two P&E threads have been closed for lack of content and as the MPSIMS thread is dedicated to breaking news, here is a proper, dedicated thread for P&E where posters can get into the intricacies of the conflict along with strong opinions about each of the players.)

For context, on June 13th, 2025, Israel attacked Iran with airstrikes and drone strikes, hitting military infrastructure, high ranking commanders and a variety of targets related to Iran’s nuclear program. Iran has retaliated with missile and drone attacks on Israel and there have been casualties in both nations. The United States is currently sitting on the sidelines but seems increasingly likely to jump in, possibly even to the point of using giant bunker busters to take out a hardened nuclear facility that Iran built in anticipation of such a conflict.

There are numerous geopolitical implications that stem from this conflict but as I know the mods are generally adverse to “discuss among yourselves” as an OP, I’ll start with a few that have crossed my mind or that I have seen mentioned in the other thread.

First and foremost, what is the end goal? Is Israel and/or the US aiming for regime change in Iran? Would that help?

Is it possible to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon or is this bombing campaign something Israel will have to repeat in a few years?

Are nations in general safer if they develop nukes? North Korea has them and no one seems to be bothering them. Ukraine gave them up and got invaded. Iraq was invaded on the pretense of looking for them but if they’d actually had them they might not have been invaded.

Is Netanyahu acting in good faith here or is there some Wag the Dog happening? While it was pointed out in the other thread that this isn’t the kind of military action one plans and executes overnight, the timing was also convenient for Netanyahu, who as I understand it would be having a colorful variety of legal problems except for the endless crises that only he can deal with.

Is Trump going to make things better or worse? As much of a terrible human being as we know Trump is, we also know that he is crazy enough to actually make absurd decisions. He has a fascination with nuclear weapons and he might see an occasion to use one here, either to destroy Fordow or simply to wipe out Tehran. I hope he doesn’t go that far but he has already publicly stated that Tehran should evacuate. He has also stated that he doesn’t know what he’s going to do. The fate of Iran could rest on whoever talks to Trump last before he does finally make up his mind.

Feel free to chime in with your own geopolitical implications! The previous thread in P&E that was closed a few minutes ago mentioned that Iran is a nation of 93 million people. I’m not sure what direction that was headed in but if that poster wishes to expand, here you go.

2

That was my reaction to seeing the thread title; this is yet another example that a nation in the modern era needs nuclear weapons if it wants to protect itself.

3

I’d say it’s more like a lesson that if you try to get nukes, you will be stopped - unless you happen to be China’s lapdog who they keep around as a buffer with South Korea.

4

Iran gets attacked whether it tries to get nukes or not. Not getting nukes gets you attacked.

5

  1. Iran didn’t get attacked, Iran launched its war against Israel through its proxies on October 7.

  2. All but one of Iran’s neighbors don’t have nukes, and you don’t see Saudi Arabia or Egypt being attacked.

  3. The only one of Iran’s neighbors who does have nukes is Israel, who as noted was attacked by Iran and proxies.

6

I have no idea what America is aiming for, or if they’re even aiming yet. Israel is aiming to destroy Iran’s capacity to produce nuclear weapons or a sufficient number of ballistic missiles to threaten Israel existentially.

Israel is systematically destroying not just the nuclear facilities, but also the factories that make the components that make the centrifuges and other necessary equipment, and the factories that make the parts that go into that equipment. Not to mention all of the top scientists of the nuclear program. By the time this is over, the Iranians would need to start their weapons program over from scratch. And if that’s the path they decide to go down, you can bet your ass that Israeli spies are going to be among the people they recruit into their new effort… And they’ll be plagued by the same sort of sabotage problems they had the first time around.

Iran is only on this war because of their own aggression, including both their proxy attacks, their nuclear ambitions, and their ballistic missile stockpile.

And again, it’s ridiculous to suggest that Kim’s nuclear program is what keeps him safe. If he wasn’t China’s lapdog, and if China wasn’t literally right there, North Korea would not have been allowed to develop nukes.

Even with nukes, if China disappeared into a parallel universe tomorrow, I think North Korea would promptly be attacked. Nukes or no nukes. Likewise, if all of North Korea’s nukes disappeared, no one would attack North Korea as long as China still supported them.

If other regimes make the mistake of deciding that going nuclear will protect them, I can only hope that we do the right thing, and support their neighbors in preventing that from happening.

It was a reference to Tucker Carlson’s meme-y line of questioning to Ted Cruz

7

Iran has been attacked repeatedly for decades, and will continue to be attacked until it gets nukes or America finally gets to conquer it, install a dictator and have a few million Iranians killed as punishment for successfully defying the US and ousting the Shah. Israel could vanish in a puff of smoke and Iran would still get attacked. They haven’t been made to properly suffer for defying their betters.

8

Considering this Israeli government’s complete lack of any long term plan for Gaza, I suspect they have no long term plan for this conflict as well. I suspect it was driven by internal politics and short term thinking, like pretty much every other decision by Netanyahu.

The implications of major bombings like this are inherently unpredictable and rarely good. I suspect short to medium term chaos and instability, but anything more than that is a guess.

The cheerleaders to this strike me as foolish as the cheerleaders to Operation Iraqi Freedom. When in history has going in with major military force, and no real long term plan, worked out for everyone for the better?

9

To those that favor these strikes by Israel, what do you think the chances are that this works out well, long term, and what are the chances there are severe unintended consequences?

10

(Citation needed). Really, they were attacked at times when they didn’t start shit?

That’s just silly. America happily works with plenty of strategic enemies. The problem is what Iran does today, not what they did almost 50 years ago.

11

Nobody cares about “strategic enemies”; they care about national ego. Iran got in America’s face and never suffered mass murder as punishment for it, and we’ve never forgiven it for that.

12

Who exactly is this who’s feeling this way and acting upon it? The American public, most of who barely knows about the Iranian revolution? Uncle Sam, the personification of America? Donald Trump, the guy whose grasp on history is incredibly weak?

It’s a nice narrative and a pretty cherry to put on top of an America Bad cake, but it’s entirely disconnected from reality. This grand narrative where “America” is sitting around fuming about the Iranian revolution and taking actions because of it is ridiculous.

13

The US previously had such lasting success with dictating Iran’s leadership - what could possibly go wrong now?!

14

Who’s talking about dictating Iran’s leadership?

Right now, Iran is a massive state with a massive ay, heading towards nuclear weapons, funding every single terror group in the region, and for the last thirty years they’ve been actively attacking their neighbors like Israel, Saudi Arabia, as well as American interests in the region through their proxies. That’s already the worst case scenario.

If Iran keeps its current regime but has its military capacity neutered and its proxies in the region smashed - great! Sure, they might try to rebuild - although before they get to rebuilding their nuclear program, they’ll need to rebuild their air defenses, air force, and missile fleet. And they’re never replacing the American F14s or helicopters that were destroyed in this war…

If Iran loses its regime and establishes something stable instead, even better.

But if Iran falls apart the way that Lybia did, which is pretty much a worst case scenario, that’s still better than the current regime.

15

What exactly do you think “unconditional surrender” is?

16

The news reports I glanced at mentioned a desire for regime change. So SOMEONE was talking about THAT.

17

In this context? A phrase that Trump heard on TV that he thought sounded cool.

Is he even in this war yet? So far, I’m pretty sure it’s just Israel.

Some people are talking about knocking the Ayatollahs out of power. Is anyone talking about nation building in Iran? That’s what I assumed dictating Iran’s leadership meant.

18

Unconditional surrender would mean that Iran’s leadership was Trump.

And there won’t be any “nation building”, the point is to hurt them, to make them suffer and die.

19

The way that after WW2, Truman became the Japanese Emperor and German Chancellor?

(Actually, that sounds like a badass concept for an alt history. Truman becomes Emperor of Japan!)

(Citation needed)

20

Of course it wasn’t Truman, but General MacArthur was the de facto Japanese head of state after WWII. And based on the results, he did an excellent job in rebuilding the country. He even managed to keep the former head of state on as a figurehead, and that person kept his position for another 40 or so years until he died a natural death as an elderly man. But there’s no way Trump would go that route with Iran*. We’d be left with a big mess, not a new western allied first world nation with the Ayatollah remaining as a figurehead.

*. For starters there’s no way Trump would tolerate an American general who has the best interests of some other country in his heart to be in charge of that other country. We know how things ended up between Truman and MacArthur. Imagine if that had been Trump rather than someone competent like Truman?