Israel launches attack on Iran

[Nivsch]

5 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

What will Israel achieve? Absolutely nothing

Resolving the nuclear and ballistic missiles threat.

[zazen]

Anything could happen within the next two weeks. The US is demanding total surrender and zero enrichment which is a red line for Iran, who’s demanding minimal enrichment for civilian purposes with strict oversight by the IAEA.

Donald is ambiguous and sending mixed signals as usual, keeping everyone guessing. Any possible “negotiations” can easily be de-railed by Israel through continuous attacks (which Iran demands should stop for negotiations to take place), going after Khomeini, maybe even a false flag.

The ball is in Israel’s court in how they want this to play out in order to drag the US in. If they just keep provoking Iran and invite retaliatory strikes, it could pressure the US to step in and act within or towards the end of this small window.

[zazen]

16 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

Resolving the nuclear and ballistic missiles threat.

Can’t demand a country get rid of its only deterrent alongside not allowing them to pursue the ultimate deterrent of a nuke.

The logic here is that “because you can reach us with weapon X, you can’t have weapon X”. But then that means no country should have a airforce, navy or drones.

US shouldn’t have carrier ships on the sea and Israel shouldn’t have F35’s as they’ve demonstrated in targeting Iran by air. They should get rid of them also then.

In fact the current standoff is between Irans ballistic missiles and Israel’s airforce - both countries are getting hits and blows. Telling either to get rid of their strengths is asking them to walk naked.

What the West (Israel and US) want  is a monopoly on power so that they can dominate. The definition of audacity, hypocrisy and supremacy.

Edited Friday at 09:14 PM by zazen

[Scholar]

9 minutes ago, zazen said:

Can’t demand a country get rid of its only deterrent alongside not allowing them to pursue the ultimate deterrent of a nuke.

The logic here is that “because you can reach us with weapon X, you can’t have weapon X”. But then that means no country should have a airforce, navy or drones.

US shouldn’t have carrier ships on the sea and Israel shouldn’t have F35’s as they’ve demonstrated in targeting Iran by air. They should get rid of them also then.

In fact the current standoff is between Irans ballistic missiles and Israel’s airforce - both countries are getting hits and blows. Telling either to get rid of their strengths is asking them to walk naked.

What the West (Israel and US) want  is a monopoly on power so that they can dominate. The definition of audacity, hypocrisy and supremacy.

Why can't you guys do us the basic decency of going and arguing with Chatgpt before coming here with arguments that aren't even informed on the basic stance of the counter-side.

I will copy pasta from ChatGPT, so that you at least have the most basic understanding:

Quote

 

1. Regional Instability and Arms Race

Proliferation domino effect: If Iran gets the bomb, other countries in the region (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey) may feel compelled to develop their own nuclear programs, sparking a regional nuclear arms race.

Destabilization of the Middle East: Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons could embolden its support for proxy groups (e.g., Hezbollah, Houthis) and encourage more aggressive regional behavior under a nuclear umbrella.

2. Threat to Israel

Existential threat: Iranian leaders have made hostile statements about Israel's existence. A nuclear-armed Iran is seen by many Israeli leaders as an existential risk, given the small size and population of the country.

Asymmetrical warfare: Iran’s support for anti-Israel terrorist organizations could become more dangerous if Iran is shielded from conventional retaliation by a nuclear deterrent.

3. Undermining Global Non-Proliferation Norms

Violation of the NPT: Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which obliges it not to develop nuclear weapons. Letting Iran get the bomb could weaken the credibility and enforcement of this treaty.

Weakening international institutions: Allowing Iran to circumvent international rules would undermine organizations like the IAEA and UN Security Council.

4. Increased Threat to US Interests

Direct military threat: A nuclear-armed Iran could pose a threat to U.S. forces and allies in the region, including in the Persian Gulf, where the U.S. has major military and economic interests.

Global terrorism risk: There are concerns—however debated—that Iran could share nuclear technology or materials with non-state actors or terror groups.

5. Potential for Miscalculation or War

Accidental conflict: The introduction of nuclear weapons into a tense, often ambiguous strategic environment could lead to miscalculations, accidental escalation, or a nuclear exchange.

Preemptive war: Iran’s progress toward nuclear capability could provoke preemptive strikes (by Israel or others), leading to wider war and regional destabilization.

6. Empowerment of an Authoritarian Regime

Domestic repression: Nuclear weapons could embolden the Iranian regime internally, reducing pressure for reform and allowing harsher crackdowns on dissent.

Strategic impunity: A nuclear deterrent could give Iran more freedom to act aggressively or support regional insurgencies without fear of major retaliation.

 

 

 

I just can't believe that this forum is just infested with brain-dead moralization instead of any desire to understand the world and why states or individuals act the way they do. It's like a moral-outrage circle jerk, only superficially different from spaces like twitter or youtube.

You need to stop with these grand narratives and start looking at the world beyond the "america bad" lense, it's simply immature.

[zazen]

8 minutes ago, Scholar said:

any desire to understand the world and why states or individuals act the way they do

Why do you think Iran is acting the way it does?

Your answers found in point 1 you shared from Chat GPT: Proliferation domino effect.

Who’s started the nuke race in the region? Who’s incentivised the need for some deterrence capacity to be established (via proxy, missiles etc) due to country after country around you getting intervened in and destabilised?

If the conclusions make the US come across bad maybe that’s just fact, too bad it hurts your feelings. Don’t call to cancel me like you did purple tree.

[Breakingthewall]

On 14/6/2025 at 2:39 AM, Twentyfirst said:

Guess what, no matter what governments are in power women in the Middle East will NEVER dress like hoes, get over it 

And what about hanging 16-year-old gays from a crane?

[Breakingthewall]

48 minutes ago, zazen said:

The ball is in Israel’s court in how they want this to play out in order to drag the US in. If they just keep provoking Iran and invite retaliatory strikes, it could pressure the US to step in and act within or towards the end of this small window.

I think anything that happens would have been planned long ago. The only logical possibility is that the plan is to bring down the Iranian regime, to strike at BRICS, but that seems crazy. They'll never give up, even if they devastate the country. But then, why is the US mobilizing?

[Breakingthewall]

57 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

Resolving the nuclear and ballistic missiles threat.

Perhaps yes, and in the process demonstrate overwhelming military superiority. Command real respect. If that's all it is, good luck to the world. But if the idea is to overthrow the regime, you're hitting China and Russia. It would be an extremely hostile move, the beginning of hatred between blocs.

[Breakingthewall]

Btw, According to the Gamaan poll, 80% of Iranians want regime change. If this is true, well, maybe a little help would be positive. Even the US can't always be completely wrong.

But probably no, it would be more Iran unite against the enemy . They wouldn't like be raped as a country 

 

Edited Friday at 11:43 PM by Breakingthewall

[Jodistrict]

 

[Twentyfirst]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

And what about hanging 16-year-old gays from a crane?

You can find extremism in any society you know. Some lady was burned to death for no reason while she was sleeping on the subway in NYC just a year ago

Gays were illegal in USA just a few decades ago 

[Nivsch]

3 hours ago, zazen said:

Who’s started the nuke race in the region?

Iran isn't under such a massive numerical disadvantage that it needs nuclear weapons for balance.
Iranian leaders may indeed have religious restraints as you explained and I respect that, but democratic restraints are far more reliable and robust.

Edited Saturday at 12:43 AM by Nivsch

[Twentyfirst]

9 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

Iran isn't under such a massive numerical disadvantage that it needs nuclear weapons for balance.
Iranian leaders may indeed have religious restraints as you explained and I respect that, but democratic restraints are far more robust.

Democracy isn't restraining

The USA is in constant war yet if you ask a citizen if they want to be 36 trillion in debt for war most of them would say no

[Breakingthewall]

21 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

You can find extremism in any society you know. Some lady was burned to death for no reason while she was sleeping on the subway in NYC just a year ago

Gays were illegal in USA just a few decades ago 

It's not the same if the government do it. Anyway in Europe homosexuality was punished by death until XVIII century 

[Twentyfirst]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

It's not the same if the government do it. Anyway in Europe homosexuality was punished by death until XVIII century 

Where is the proof of the crane hangings? 

Israeli government is evil man. How many times do we have to circle back to these simple obvious things. Stop using double standards 

[Breakingthewall]

5 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

Where is the proof of the crane hangings? 

Israeli government is evil man. How many times do we have to circle back to these simple obvious things. Stop using double standards 

7 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

Anyway, nothing of that justify the aggression. It seems like a tool for Netanyahu to unite Israel and clean up his political image, and at the same time project dominance, superior force, in the Middle East

[zazen]

10 hours ago, Nivsch said:

Iran isn't under such a massive numerical disadvantage that it needs nuclear weapons for balance.
Iranian leaders may indeed have religious restraints as you explained and I respect that, but democratic restraints are far more reliable and robust.

It's understandable why Israel went for nukes out of survival logic - which was before it had US protection. It comes down to vulnerability which comes in many forms - being outnumbered or outmatched, poor geography, lack of partners or allies. The reason Japan doesn't go for nukes despite being outnumbered by China is because it has US backing. North Korea went for nukes because it was isolated. The gulf don't go for nukes because they have US protection including Pakistan.

But its the same survival logic of vulnerability that is causing Iran to want to pursue nukes or keep the capability to do so - it's in a hostile neighborhood, outnumbered by a sunni population if a fight was to ever break out over religious dividing lines, and is surrounded by US bases - meaning outmatched by US military who have massive fire and air power. Iran's the last man standing against US - Israeli hegemony in the region - anyone in their shoes would want to get deterrence through ballistic missiles or any other means possible.

Democratic restrains didn't stop the US from nuking Japan including all the other naughty stuff the US has been up to every year of its existence till today. In fact, democracy which allows for change every few years is vulnerable to an extremist or demagogue being voted into power. Trump was voted into power and left the JCPOA which was keeping Iran away from nukes - that's the reliability of democracy at work.

This is the same democracy that enabled Libya to give up their WMD programme but that then resulted in Gaddafi being toppled and sodomized with a bayonet in utter humiliation. As Hillary Clinton said “we came, we saw, he died”.

This is why the chant ''Death to America'' which is explained here for Khameni: 

Another clip: https://x.com/me_observer_/status/1936223604175450393?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ

It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out why the chant exists after watching what the US has done the past decades. Iran just says the quiet part out loud that most of the Global South and Muslim world feel. They have a culture of resistance and martyrdom to not fear the consequences as much. The West acts surprised that they are stood up to - they act as if no other people on the planet have pride in them to fight back or that they have civilizations (Persian, Indian, Chinese) with spirituality and depth more ancient than even theirs that are worth fighting for. It's dehumanizing at its worst and ignorant as its best. They see anyone's freedom anywhere - as a threat to their supremacy everywhere. ''How dare they resist''

Edited Saturday at 11:01 AM by zazen

[Rafael Thundercat]

How to trool like a pro.

This guy is making history. Sorry Israel but no sorry

 

[Lyubov]

Trump is weighing the political fallout back home if he bombs Iran. People remember him running on being an isolationist especially his most vocal supports like Tucker. He’s “alt” right, remember? Not establishment but populist. It would greatly hurt his approval and political will at home. Establishment US hegemony wants to bomb Iran and right wing populists have managed to carve out a path towards electoral victory by distancing themselves from that wing of their party. Establishment have been salivating at the idea for a long time and Trump isn’t sure which to go with because in a dirty way US could bomb Iran for some positives. Long term I think this greatly hurts trust in government. 

[PurpleTree]

huge gaza protest in my city today