Netanyahu has been nothing but a disaster for not just the Israel-Palestine, not just the Middle-East, but the world in general by this point. He's extremely competent in doing everything he can...
Netanyahu has been nothing but a disaster for not just the Israel-Palestine, not just the Middle-East, but the world in general by this point. He's extremely competent in doing everything he can to stay in power and avoid consequences of his own actions, and I'm pretty impressed by just how far and how shrewd he's willing to go.
If you consider his entire political career as a way to gain power, avoid consequences, he's done an amazing job. He influences the media through corruption, edges the genocide in Gaza to delay any election and removal of power, drags other countries in the mess, and uses the hostages of Hamas to have the bare minimum of plausible deniability(even after it's obvious it's not about hostages anymore, or October 7th imo). And by using the antisemitism card so much he's even effectively dragged Jewish people outside of Israel into this, when they're already fucking struggling themselves with this whole mess.
Absolutely disgusting, and also really impressive. He doesn't even seem to care how he ends up in the history books. Anything for him in the here and now. And I thought I hated the Kgremlin and the fermented mandarin.
There's a strange bit from that article: Implying that someone who believes Israel controls American politicians should be grouped with antisemites is bad-faith reporting IMO.
There's a strange bit from that article:
These non-interventionists are joined by a slice of MAGA that promotes antisemitism and conspiracy theories about Israel controlling American politicians.
Implying that someone who believes Israel controls American politicians should be grouped with antisemites is bad-faith reporting IMO.
To be fair, the idea that Israel controls American politicians is ludicrous and does play into antisemitic conspiracy theories. US politicians support Israel because it materially benefits both US...
Exemplary
Implying that someone who believes Israel controls American politicians should be grouped with antisemites is bad-faith reporting IMO.
To be fair, the idea that Israel controls American politicians is ludicrous and does play into antisemitic conspiracy theories. US politicians support Israel because it materially benefits both US foreign interests and often those politicians' personal goals. Even if we set aside the long history of antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jews running the world (and we probably shouldn't when we're choosing our rhetoric about this particular issue), pretending that Israel is a shadowy cabal controlling US politicians absolves US politicians themselves of far too much responsibility in the choices they make and the things they vote for/sign.
That side of being anti-Israel is mostly like, bog-standard Jews-run-the-world antisemitism. The author's playing a bit fast and loose but is not entirely inaccurate.
That side of being anti-Israel is mostly like, bog-standard Jews-run-the-world antisemitism. The author's playing a bit fast and loose but is not entirely inaccurate.
For sure, saying that there's a Jewish conspiracy running the world is clearly antisemitic but saying that there's an Israeli lobby controlling American politics is something completely different.
For sure, saying that there's a Jewish conspiracy running the world is clearly antisemitic but saying that there's an Israeli lobby controlling American politics is something completely different.
Influencing by lobbying and "controlling" are very different levels, and I'd call the latter a conspiracy theory without significantly more evidence than "they donate money"
Influencing by lobbying and "controlling" are very different levels, and I'd call the latter a conspiracy theory without significantly more evidence than "they donate money"
The Israeli lobby is far from just any other lobby, however. I wouldn't seriously fault anyone for using the term "control" to describe the influence it has on the American political process.
The Israeli lobby is far from just any other lobby, however. I wouldn't seriously fault anyone for using the term "control" to describe the influence it has on the American political process.
AIPAC and related orgs do have tremendous and adverse influence in US politics. That being said, surely this can be articulated in a way that does not, consciously or not, dip into antisemitic...
AIPAC and related orgs do have tremendous and adverse influence in US politics. That being said, surely this can be articulated in a way that does not, consciously or not, dip into antisemitic imagery or verbiage. At the very least doing so distracts from the very real problem that AIPAC has tremendous and adverse influence in US politics.
It is certainly the case that pro-Israel people in the US fall back on claims of anti-semitism when it is not warranted. That does not mean of course that every such claim is false, and given the history of the “Jews control xyz country” I personally try to stay away from such wording, and would personally fault others for insisting on it once they’ve been informed.
Then I'd take the original sentence literally and not conflate hyperbole with the types of people mentioned. I have zero interest in discussing Israel itself.
Then I'd take the original sentence literally and not conflate hyperbole with the types of people mentioned.
I'm well aware, and also wholly disinterested in debating Israel on the internet. I don't think what you described equates to "Israel controlling US politicians." Quite the opposite.
I'm well aware, and also wholly disinterested in debating Israel on the internet.
I don't think what you described equates to "Israel controlling US politicians." Quite the opposite.
This sure looks like it's going to be a mess. It could be another "you hit us, we hit you, we both back down" exchange, but this certainly feels different. I'm assuming that they hit nuclear...
This sure looks like it's going to be a mess. It could be another "you hit us, we hit you, we both back down" exchange, but this certainly feels different.
I'm assuming that they hit nuclear facilities, so we'll see how Iran responds, and I'm not sure exactly who's in position to stop another massive ballistic missile attack if that's the way they go.
Edit-
Reminder that of course, misinformation/noise/propaganda will be everywhere in the coming hours, that said the main things i'm seeing:
Israel claims they had information that Iran was days away from having nukes.
They seem to have struck nuclear facilities.
The US is claiming no involvement with the strike.
edit 2:
Israel planning a "weeks long campaign"
Supposedly they also targeted military leaders and politicians in the strikes or perhaps simultaneous assassination attempts.
So yeah, I don't see how this doesn't end in serious violence and most likely full out war.
Edit 3:
Seeing reports that Iran will declare war, which seems like the only option given the scale of the attack.
Edit 4:
Iranian drones have been confirmed heading towards Israel. Should arrive in 4-5 hours? Likely the first wave of a coordinated attack, we'll see if there's ballistic and cruise missile support timed to hit at the same time in I believe an hour or so.
A similar scale attack as last time might do a LOT more damage this time as I believe before they gave some warning so there was time to position.
What does a war between Iran and Israel actually look like though, considering they don't share a border? Traditionally Iran has fought Israel through Hamas and Hizbollah, but those are both...
So yeah, I don't see how this doesn't end in serious violence and most likely full out war.
What does a war between Iran and Israel actually look like though, considering they don't share a border? Traditionally Iran has fought Israel through Hamas and Hizbollah, but those are both shadows of their former selves at the moment.
Welllp i'm late to this, but uh...yeah what's going on now? Lots of long range strikes. Iran is probably going to try to just saturation bomb Israel targeting both military targets and possibly...
Welllp i'm late to this, but uh...yeah what's going on now?
Lots of long range strikes. Iran is probably going to try to just saturation bomb Israel targeting both military targets and possibly large population centers.
Considering that huge shipment of missiles diverted from Ukraine to (maybe not, cannot find a source for that) last week, I call bullshit on this. Israel is also saying the opposite. I think the...
The US is claiming no involvement with the strike.
Considering that huge shipment of missiles diverted from Ukraine to Israel (maybe not, cannot find a source for that) last week, I call bullshit on this. Israel is also saying the opposite. I think the only way this statement could be honest would be if there was already a split in the US government and the more sane faction decided to not tell the less sane faction who would likely leak the information and make the situation worse.
In case anyone was wondering, this seems to be from a Wall Street Journal story: ... ... https://archive.is/fJ1Jx Although he calls them "missiles", this seems to be confirmed by an interview...
huge shipment of missiles diverted from Ukraine to Israel last week
In case anyone was wondering, this seems to be from a Wall Street Journal story:
The Pentagon quietly notified Congress last week that special fuzes for rockets that Ukraine uses to shoot down Russian drones are now being allocated to U.S. Air Force units in the Middle East.
...
The defense chief went further in an internal memo last month. In it, he authorized the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell, a Pentagon office that ensures commanders’ weapons needs are met, to provide the fuzes to the U.S. Air Force, even though they were initially bought for Ukraine.
...
The fuzes are intended for the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System. The U.S. has provided that technology to Ukraine for a couple of years, and the Ukrainians have used it in a ground-to-air rocket system for defending against Russian drones. The Pentagon has touted its effectiveness. A critical component is the “proximity fuze,” which detonates explosives when the rocket nears a drone.
The Air Force has adapted the rockets so that they can be fired by F-16s and F-15E jet fighters against drones. The system is cheaper than Sidewinder and AMRAAM air-to-air missiles. A photo of an F-15E equipped with the rocket pods was recently posted by the U.S. Central Command.
Zelenskyy said the U.S. would divert "20,000 missiles" earmarked for Ukraine in an agreement with the Biden administration to the Middle East, where it appears the U.S. would use them for its own force protection
...
The Ukrainian president said the assets were “not expensive, but [a] special technology” which specifically defended against Shahed drones.
But neither story says anything about them being transferred to Israel.
To be fair, this is very different than "involved." Edit: to be fair to you, I guess it depends on what you mean by involved. Generally when people say this they mean "didn't participate in the...
confirms he knew about it.
To be fair, this is very different than "involved."
Edit: to be fair to you, I guess it depends on what you mean by involved. Generally when people say this they mean "didn't participate in the strikes or provide support to the strikes", but if you were to argue that the US supplying so many arms to Israel tacitly means the US is involved, I would understand that.
I would argue that, if they knew what Israel was going to do with them, which it seem like they obviously did. Some unverifiable back channels claim that Trump did not like it and tried to...
if you were to argue that the US supplying so many arms to Israel tacitly means the US is involved
I would argue that, if they knew what Israel was going to do with them, which it seem like they obviously did.
Some unverifiable back channels claim that Trump did not like it and tried to persuade Netanyahu to not do it though. (and then after it happened used it to try to make himself look good, but that part is expected)
I kinda already commented on this but there are, technically, pretty clear and accepted definitions of "involved" from a geopolitical and military standard, and I think the original quote was...
I kinda already commented on this but there are, technically, pretty clear and accepted definitions of "involved" from a geopolitical and military standard, and I think the original quote was referencing that kind of defintion.
It would mean that the US did not provide intelligence, systems help, satellite information, their own forces, etc.
Again though unfortunately between the complete lack of media accountability and a total shitshow of an admin it's anyones guess.
Yeah I didn't buy it either, but it's what they had said. That said there are different levels of "involvement" when talking militarily. They might actually mean "we were aware of the strike and...
Yeah I didn't buy it either, but it's what they had said.
That said there are different levels of "involvement" when talking militarily. They might actually mean "we were aware of the strike and provided no direct support" but with this admin it's fucking impossible to track anything anyways.
Trump on Truth Social: So much for US not being involved.
Trump on Truth Social:
I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to “just do it,” but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn’t get it done. I told them it would be much worse than anything they know, anticipated, or were told, that the United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it, with much more to come - And they know how to use it. Certain Iranian hardliner’s spoke bravely, but they didn’t know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse! There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end. Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. God Bless You All!
A few years ago, I made a comment about the difference between US media's coverage of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and they way they cover America-backed violence in the Middle East. If the past...
A few years ago, I made a comment about the difference between US media's coverage of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and they way they cover America-backed violence in the Middle East. If the past 20 months have not been a clear enough example of manufacturing consent, the next few days of coverage should hopefully do the trick.
Absent from the coverage I've seen so far are questions and statements like: Does Iran have a right to exist? Do you condemn Netanyahu? Or: Iran has a right to defend itself!
Instead, we are getting everything told through the US/Israeli perspective that Iran was a few days away from developing WMDs nuclear weapons. Now that Iran has retaliated, everything going forward is going to be about how Iran is the aggressor. The "experts" and "analysts" on television will be limited to IDF spokespersons and lobbyists for American defense contractors. And the ongoing genocide and starvation campaign that Israel is perpetrating in Gaza will be an afterthought - not that it was ever that big of a deal in the first place.
Edit: Almost forgot to honor the recently (and not so recently) departed. It's finally happening, boys.
For most countries, there is no question about their "right to exist." Historically, some countries have disappeared, either permanently or temporarily (e.g. Poland), but this is now very rare....
For most countries, there is no question about their "right to exist." Historically, some countries have disappeared, either permanently or temporarily (e.g. Poland), but this is now very rare. It's normal that nobody talks that way about countries, even when at war. Defeating an enemy doesn't normally mean eliminating them. So there's nothing to explain.
It would be particularly weird to talk that way about Iran. These are pretty intense airstrikes, but nobody thinks there will be an invasion.
So it doesn't come up, except for Israel and Palestine, because the rhetoric and actual fighting are far more extreme.
That question is asked specifically about Israel. Maybe there are a handful of examples one can find of the opposite, but the overwhelming majority of the coverage since October 7 has included...
So it doesn't come up, except for Israel and Palestine, because the rhetoric and actual fighting are far more extreme.
That question is asked specifically about Israel.
Maybe there are a handful of examples one can find of the opposite, but the overwhelming majority of the coverage since October 7 has included questions like that, directed specifically at those who criticize Israel and the IDF. We even saw a version of it last week in the NYC mayoral primary debate.
The reason why that question exists, and why it is asked so often, is that it helps to frame every military act by the IDF as a defensive one, regardless of its severity or who is victimized in the process.
Palestinians, on the other hand, are not afforded the same protections. Time and time again, in the wake of October 7, whenever someone spoke out against Israel bombing children or blowing up hospitals, they were asked if they condemn Hamas. It's as if being appalled by Oct 7 and IDF war crimes are somehow mutually exclusive.
Again, that's not the only way in which the media reframes the conversation about Israel's violence against Palestinians. There's also the under/over reporting of casualties, the use of passive voice and different adjectives to describe casualties, the imbalance of perspectives among guests, biased sources, etc. It's an older article, but The Intercept did some analysis of the media coverage after October 7, if you're interested. I'm sure there's more recent work out there to support their findings.
I don't think it was intentional, but I feel like your focus on that one particular question misses the larger point that I was trying to make, which is that mainstream American press covers international conflicts from a perspective that benefits the interests of the US State Department. Violence and war should be covered critically and objectively, regardless of the parties involved.
I resent the implication because it was not just the US and Israel, it was also the UN, to which Iran replied that it's going to build a new enrichment facility with advanced centrifuges. The...
Instead, we are getting everything told through the US/Israeli perspective that Iran was a few days away from developing WMDs nuclear weapons.
I resent the WMDs implication because it was not just the US and Israel, it was also the UN, to which Iran replied that it's going to build a new enrichment facility with advanced centrifuges. The statement that Iran is building nuclear weapons is not a controversial one, the controversy is merely in how to respond to that.
And from historical reasons I can understand why Khamenei is doing it. But Iranian regime is an oppressive one that also funds foreign terrorists and serves as the main destabilizing force in the region, se he won't be allowed to actually do it and that's quite likely to prevent things worse than what's happening now.
Ding! Ding! Ding! The fact that this is the baseline attitude shows the efficacy and outcome of mainstream western reporting. You even recognize the reasons why Iran would seek to develop nuclear...
Exemplary
But Iranian regime is an oppressive one that also funds foreign terrorists and serves as the main destabilizing force in the region, se he won't be allowed to actually do it and that's quite likely to prevent things worse than what's happening now.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
The fact that this is the baseline attitude shows the efficacy and outcome of mainstream western reporting. You even recognize the reasons why Iran would seek to develop nuclear weapons, yet the rest of the comment frames Israel's strikes as defensive. Why? How?
For starters, lets look at this morning's coverage of the conflict:
(Judging by your link, I'm assuming you are probably from the EU, so forgive me for limiting my examples to American outlets but it's what I'm familiar with and what my focus was in my original comments)
Here's ABC reporting from Tel Aviv and showing the destruction caused by Iranian strikes. No mention that Israel struck first, no mention of collateral damage in Israel's strikes in Tehran. No mention of what Iran was trying to hit.
CBS did a better job of at least mentioning that Israel struck first and that there are casualties on both sides, but notice some of the "subtle" differences. Israel's strikes, again, are all on military targets while Iranian strikes are in neighborhoods. Netanyahu isn't popular, but neither is The Regime. Israel's population is fleeing to bomb shelters while Iranians stay out in the open because of The Regime. It's "painful" for Israel to inflict casualties. All of the b-roll footage is from Israel. When discussing peace options, the prospects seem bleak, in part because Russia has a conflict of interest, but also because Iran "sees" the US as a supplier of Israel's weapons (somehow, the US does not have a conflict of interest).
CBS at least showed footage of Iranian state TV being hit by a missile a- Oh. Nevermind, they spent the next 2/3 of the video laying out Israel's justification for the strike.
CNN threw a little humanity towards the Iranians, but that was dwarfed by images from Israel and an extensive interview with Naftali Bennett! And that's just them getting started! Later in the day, they had Yoav Gallant on for a half-hour interview where he made the case for the US to get involved.
NBC seems a lot better in comparison, but let's contrast that with something from Al Jazeera, Democracy Now or Drop Site. Notice any differences? Could you imagine seeing something like this in mainstream American news?
Maybe TV isn't your thing. If that's the case, scroll down a little bit to skybrian's link from the Washington Post, which portrays the Iranians as bloodthirsty maniacs. Or, you can hop on over to the front page and comb over their coverage which, again, reinforces the narrative that Israel is merely defending itself. This despite the fact that Israel struck first, has rejected negotiations, and is led by a literal war criminal.
Reminder that Israel has killed and maimed tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians and has displaced and starved hundreds of thousands more, yet they are never portrayed as an aggressor. Iran, on the other hand, is always portrayed as the aggressor. There are enough examples of this double standard to fill several books, but I think this tweet by Muhammad Shehada highlights the absurdity perfectly:
What Iran is allowed to do, according to Israel’s own rules of engagement in Gaza:
If a single Israeli reservist or Likud member lives in a high-rise building, or if a single pistol is nearby, knock down the whole thing
If an Israeli reservist is being treated at a hospital, bomb the sh*t out of it
Since Netanyahu is hiding in an unknown bunker under a densely populated city, drop a bomb every 5 meters indiscriminately until you hit the target. Even if you miss, it’s okay, it’s the intention that counts. (Israel “tried to assassinate” Ezz al-Din al-Haddad 12 times, each resulted a massacre. He’s still alive).
Israelis huddling at a shelter? Surely one of two of them must be Khamas… I mean IDF-linked; so level those places at random, & claim you were aiming for any reservist whose name shows up among the victims. It’s an inevitability if you killed 100 people in one strike, that at least one of them would be a rank & file member of something!
Issue an evacuation order to 80% of Israel, then bomb at will. Anyone who complains, yell at them “we told Israelis to move south”
Bomb journalists, they’re “propaganda operatives” (serious Israeli pretext). Bomb humanitarian workers & doctors to starve the population & collapse their health system, then claim they got in the way or were being used as human shields (or that they are Likud members themselves).
Every time you kill a lot of civilians, keep repeating “they voted for a convicted terrorist (Ben-Gvir), therefore they are all guilty”.
Keep saying “there was a ceasefire on June 12” & “all of this can end now if Israel surrenders and releases the khostages”!
Bomb power plants, seaports, airports, water stations, sewage plants… & claim they all benefited the IDF, since soldiers are humans who use electricity & water (works for Israel every time!)
Shoot anyone with a white flag, & shoot hundreds of kids in the skull, then call the doctors documenting this “Khamas”… I mean “Likud”!
Use only bombs that splinter into ten thousand pieces & kill people in a radius of 500 meters at random!
Lastly, I need to address one more crucial thing.
[Iran] serves as the main destabilizing force in the region
That's not true. Iran serves as the main destabilizing force to America's interests in the region. It's an important distinction to make. If we were to rank the main destabilizing forces in the Middle East, the list would begin and end with the United States. Maybe an honorable mention to the British for the legacy they left behind. The US invaded two separate countries and occupied them for roughly 20 years. The US has armed and backed countless militias, dictatorships, religious fundamentalists, and future terrorist organizations over the last 70-80 years. The US has been the primary weapons supplier to not one but two governments that have perpetrated genocide in the last decade. Hell, the US is directly tied to the existence of the Iranian government. One of the primary reasons for the Iranian Revolution and the regime that took over afterwards was American meddling, which is highlighted by a coup that the CIA instigated!
You talk about everything but the actual issue. What's on TV in Israeli-aligned countries like the US or in coutries allied to Iran like Qatar, or what's Israel's image and track record regarding...
Exemplary
You talk about everything but the actual issue. What's on TV in Israeli-aligned countries like the US or in coutries allied to Iran like Qatar, or what's Israel's image and track record regarding Gaza is a separate argument that I don't think I touched and I'm not interested in doing so.
Regarding Iran itself:
You even recognize the reasons why Iran would seek to develop nuclear weapons, yet the rest of the comment frames Israel's strikes as defensive. Why? How?
Why would those two things be in conflict? Obviously when a regime I consider to be dangerous or evil is about to get into a much more advantageous geopolitical position, that is a bad thing regardless of reason.
That's not true. Iran serves as the main destabilizing force to America's interests in the region. It's an important distinction to make. If we were to rank the main destabilizing forces in the Middle East, the list would begin and end with the United States. Maybe an honorable mention to the British for the legacy they left behind. The US invaded two separate countries and occupied them for roughly 20 years. The US has armed and backed countless militias, dictatorships, religious fundamentalists, and future terrorist organizations over the last 70-80 years. The US has been the primary weapons supplier to not one but two governments that have perpetrated genocide in the last decade. Hell, the US is directly tied to the existence of the Iranian government. One of the primary reasons for the Iranian Revolution and the regime that took over afterwards was American meddling, which is highlighted by a coup that the CIA instigated!
I don't agree with everything here, but sure, I'm not going to apologize US invading Afghanistan or Iraq, or the Soviets invading Afghanistan or other things that happened. However the situation before the October 7 attacks was that Israel was slowly increasing ties with most of its neighbors despite past conflicts, which was about to bring unprecedented stability to the region, and the main opposition to that stability was Iran and proxy groups funded by Iran.
I'm not interested in labeling who's the good guy and the bad guy. I'm saying that until recently the development of the status quo in the region was looking quite promising comparatively to any period in recent history, despite obvious exceptions like the situation in Palestine itself, and Iran is the main force in the region striving to break that.
The other thing is, regardless of what you think of the above argument, Iran unquestionably is more autocratic than Israel. Israel is still a democratic country and has a chance to reform itself. Its current government is terrible, but remember that before the crisis started by Oct 7 there were repeated large protests against the government's reforms going on for months. Iran doesn't have this option, it's being led by a parallel non-elected theocratic structure that violently oppresses its own citizens, aside from funding foreign terrorist groups. Iranian society itself is split on this issue and a large part sees its government as just as evil as we do.
A regime like that having access to nukes is not in anybody's interest. And I honestly don't think this position is very controversial, which is perhaps why you wrote about everything but this basic problem.
Iran is still much more democratic than any of the Gulf monarchies that we help prop up. I believe some pressure against Iran is necessary, but regime change is not wise and, if it fails, will...
Iran is still much more democratic than any of the Gulf monarchies that we help prop up. I believe some pressure against Iran is necessary, but regime change is not wise and, if it fails, will nearly guarantee that Iran will pursue a nuke, hell or high water. This is despite the fact they were previously enriching uranium primarily just for deterrence and stated clearly (including in a fatwa from Khamenei) that that the use of any weapon of mass destruction was religiously forbidden and that they would rather not have a nuke. Worse yet, we'll give another clear lesson to the rest of the world that you should never give up a chance to build a nuke if it arises (which it did arise for Iran on several occasions).
Well, before I say anything else, I just want to thank you for taking the time to write a thorough response. It's a nice feeling whenever you put some effort into a comment and someone responds...
Exemplary
Well, before I say anything else, I just want to thank you for taking the time to write a thorough response. It's a nice feeling whenever you put some effort into a comment and someone responds thoughtfully. As for your response, I have a few thoughts. Respectfully, of course.
First of all, I am writing about the issue. I set the issue. My original comment was about American media manufacturing consent for war with Iran. Up until the very end of my comment, I was focused on that issue and how it might influence public opinion. I used a relevant portion of your comment to illustrate how the media supports that narrative without offering any other explanation, context, or perspective.
Now it seems like I've opened the door to a conversation about the conflict itself and the supposed justification.
what's Israel's image and track record regarding Gaza is a separate argument
It shouldn't be. Israel and Netanyahu have been trying to drum up support for this exact cause since the 1990s. Israel's history of violence and brutality, Netanyahu's status as a war criminal, and his long held desire to bomb Iran should all play a role in evaluating the legitimacy of his claims.
Why would those two things be in conflict? Obviously when a regime I consider to be dangerous or evil is about to get into a much more advantageous geopolitical position, that is a bad thing regardless of reason.
I think I might've misunderstood your original line about why Iran would seek to develop a nuclear weapon, so hear me out. Imagine for a moment that you are Iranian. And you're not some crazed Muslim who wants to bathe in the blood of Jews and thinks women should stoned for showing their ankles, but actually a relatively reasonable person. You've seen Iraq get destroyed and occupied, you've seen Afghanistan under occupation for nearly 40 years, you've seen foreign powers meddle and stir up conflicts in Syria, Libya, Jordan, Yemen, and Egypt, and of course, you are familiar with your own country's history of foreign interference. You also look further southwest and see a similar pattern all across Africa and Latin America. Then you look Pakistan, and Russia, and China, and you notice that despite having various periods of heightened tensions with Western powers, they have been able to maintain their autonomy in a way that no one else has. Maybe it's in your best interest to get what they've got. Maybe Iran is developing nukes, not for bloodlust and conquest, but out of self-preservation.
Now does that mean that I personally think it would be good for everyone to have nukes? Of course not. But if our goal is nuclear non-proliferation, then we need to look closer at the actions of nuclear-armed countries and see how they might contribute to other countries arming themselves. Maybe if we examined the history of the region with a little more depth, we might come to better understand the root of these problems.
Furthermore, when it comes to the subject of Iran having nuclear weapons, we are once again automatically in this framing that Iran is somehow moments away from developing and deploying a nuclear weapon, even though there is no evidence of that being the case. In fact, US intelligence said the opposite just a few months ago. THAT is the controversy. THAT is why I am so focused on manufactured consent. Because a literal war criminal is able to recklessly bomb a foreign country without any evidence to support his justification and our immediate reaction is to just throw up our hands and say, "Well, he's right. Can't let them have nukes," even though we've already seen how this plays out should it escalate.
The other thing is, regardless of what you think of the above argument, Iran unquestionably is more autocratic than Israel. Israel is still a democratic country and has a chance to reform itself. Its current government is terrible, but remember that before the crisis started by Oct 7 there were repeated large protests against the government's reforms going on for months. Iran doesn't have this option, it's being led by a parallel non-elected theocratic structure that violently oppresses its own citizens, aside from funding foreign terrorist groups. Iranian society itself is split on this issue and a large part sees its government as just as evil as we do
This is a confusing set of standards. On one hand, we're glossing over war crimes, apartheid, and genocide because the perpetrator is a democracy and had protests? If anything, shouldn't they be held to a higher standard because they voted for that? On the other hand, Iran, which has objectively done less terrible things in recent years, is somehow worse because of its government's structure and/or its opposition to the countries that consistently attack everyone else in the region. How does any of that justify an unprovoked attack?
Also, not that it's a big deal, but where does Saudi Arabia fit in all of this? They're an oppressive, theocratic monarchy that has (famously) caused terror and (less famously) caused destruction in the region. Should they be next?
To be clear, I am not going to sit here and say that Iran's government is good. It stands against nearly every one of my personal values. But I am opposed to changing that via foreign military intervention, just as I would be opposed to China blowing up half the eastern seaboard in an effort to oust the Trump administration. Iran is a sovereign country, its change needs to come from within. Military intervention on the pretense that it might possibly someday have the potential to attack an adversary is unjustified. How any of this is somehow a conversation after Iraq is baffling to me.
The problem is you wrote about it seemingly without worrying what the reality is. Forgive me if I assumed too much, but your WMDs remark most of all seemed to imply that the whole issue may be...
Now it seems like I've opened the door to a conversation about the conflict itself and the supposed justification.
The problem is you wrote about it seemingly without worrying what the reality is. Forgive me if I assumed too much, but your WMDs remark most of all seemed to imply that the whole issue may be manufactured, similar with mentioning "experts" in quotation marks etc. Talking about the coverage in this way without putting it in context of what's happening and what's the current situation like is, ironically, a functional and often used propaganda tool, which is why I took issue.
Regarding Iran's reasoning for developing nuclear weapons: no, I understand this. The unfortunate reality is that nukes are a great deterrent and Khamenei is understandably worried about foreign influence due to past experience. Another unfortunate reality is that Iran having this leverage is against the interests of everyone else. We were unable to prevent Kim Jong Un from getting nukes, but we will sure as hell try to prevent Iran at least.
Also I think it's worth noting that this thing was avoidable. Iran could have kept international observers and not replied saying basically "well I'm now going to enrich even harder!".
Regarding whether Iran is building nuclear weapons or not, others have replied to that.
This is a confusing set of standards. On one hand, we're glossing over war crimes, apartheid, and genocide because the perpetrator is a democracy and had protests? If anything, shouldn't they be held to a higher standard because they voted for that?
I am not entirely sure if they should be held to a higher standard or not, but regardless of that I believe that generally, historically, they have been by most of the world except US establishment and the cetrist and right wing part of the population which tends to do the opposite (and maybe a couple other small allies like Czechia).
Also, not that it's a big deal, but where does Saudi Arabia fit in all of this? They're an oppressive, theocratic monarchy that has (famously) caused terror and (less famously) caused destruction in the region. Should they be next?
Saudi Arabia somewhat calming down their foreign policy and establishing new relations with Israel was precisely what Iran tried to disrupt and was possibly one of the reasons for the Oct 7 attacks. I do find some of their internal politics disgusting just like with Iran, but again, Iran would be much less of a problem if it did not fund terrorist groups in other countries and disrupt relations in the region, which Saudi Arabia currently does significantly less.
To be clear, I am not going to sit here and say that Iran's government is good. It stands against nearly every one of my personal values. But I am opposed to changing that via foreign military intervention, just as I would be opposed to China blowing up half the eastern seaboard in an effort to oust the Trump administration. Iran is a sovereign country, its change needs to come from within.
You present this as a black & white situation, but it isn't.
I'm saying this as a citizen of a post-communist country which was fortunate enough to eventually break out on its own because the communist regime was incompetent enough to very slowly crumble, but that was after 40 years, and 35 years later we still have not fully recovered. We also tried to relax and liberalize the regime after 20 years, howeve this attempt was stopped by a full on invasion led by the Soviets. I wish the US interfered more because the dissent always existed but the country was led by a minority of autocrats who imprisoned or murdered opposition. Radio Free Europe and Voice of America, nowadays described by redditors as disgusting propaganda, were one of the few available windows into the outside world, sources of information much less biased than our own.
Iran is not the same, but from everything I've read about it Iranian society seems to be somewhat closer to us than to Iraq or Afghanistan - lots of will to do things differently, a more liberal time still in the collective memory and true hardliners seemingly being a minority, though not a tiny one.
So if a direct interference happens, it may just be taking out the parallel undemocratic religious structures and letting actual democracy happen. It may also turn out much worse, but it's unlikely to end up as Iraq or Afghanistan, because the starting situation is very different and also because as stupid and chaotic as Trump is, the US is unlikely to do the same mistake again - if only because it seems unnecessary in this case. Israeli intelligence is iirc claiming there's only one site for uranium enrichment left and international observers agree with that - the problem is just that Israel does not have the means to get to it since it's possibly up to a couple hundred meters underground. But there doesn't seem to be attempts at justifying a ground invasion, and a large part of the population would not go to voluntarily fight for the regime's defense either.
It is and it isn't. I elaborated on this more in my reply to gary, but the bottom line is there is a difference between the narrative presented and the reality when it comes to Iran's nuclear...
The problem is you wrote about it seemingly without worrying what the reality is. Forgive me if I assumed too much, but your WMDs remark most of all seemed to imply that the whole issue may be manufactured, similar with mentioning "experts" in quotation marks etc.
It is and it isn't. I elaborated on this more in my reply to gary, but the bottom line is there is a difference between the narrative presented and the reality when it comes to Iran's nuclear capabilities. To elaborate a little further on my use of scare quotes around 'experts,' I did that because they're brought on to give people the impression that the whole story is being presented, yet they do not provide context beyond the narrative that benefits the IDF or interests of military contractors. Again, if you look at the expert analysis on, say, CNN, and compare it to something like Democracy Now, you see a huge difference.
Iran is not the same, but from everything I've read about it Iranian society seems to be somewhat closer to us than to Iraq or Afghanistan - lots of will to do things differently, a more liberal time still in the collective memory and true hardliners seemingly being a minority, though not a tiny one.
So if a direct interference happens, it may just be taking out the parallel undemocratic religious structures and letting actual democracy happen.
I respect your perspective as someone from a former Eastern Bloc country (Czechoslovakia?), and you're right about the different circumstances your country faced, and some of the cultural differences between Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, but I think you have a very very optimistic view about this.
Wild hypotheticals aside, 20th century American intervention/regime change/nation building/whatever in Europe might've eventually resembled something close to the Marshall Plan, which could've been beneficial...assuming everything went to plan and we all avoided WW3. A Trump-run regime change in Iran, however, would most likely mirror the "Shock Doctrine" treatment that 21st century America put on Iraq.
Given the size constraints and the fact that we supply 70% of Israel's weaponry, the only way that this happens is if the US in on board as a full participant. There is absolutely no way America participates in a conflict of that scale without making sure that (a) a friendly government emerges, and (b) lots of money is made in the process. While Trump's politics are much more isolationist on the surface, his policies are driven by the same principles of mass privatization that the Bush 2 admin championed. It's been on full-display here in America at levels that Bush & co could only dream about, and it was on Trump's vision board for Gaza. For that reason, I have a hard time believing it would be anything other than open season for contractors, sub-contractors, and sub-sub contractors looking for quick cash after a devastating military campaign while Iranians stand on the sideline in despair just like their Iraqi neighbors did 20 years ago. Whatever goodwill Iranians have (which at the moment, doesn't seem to be much) would quickly fade as they watch their neighborhoods turn to rubble.
Yes, that is a possible outcome as well for sure. I just think the potential for instability and complete state breakdown is considerably lower here, also for various other reasons not mentioned...
Yes, that is a possible outcome as well for sure. I just think the potential for instability and complete state breakdown is considerably lower here, also for various other reasons not mentioned above - for example there's a relatively large number of Iranian elites living abroad (a lot of academics and obscenely wealthy businessmen), many of whom are waiting to go back if the regime changes.
Well, we'll see how it turns out whether we want it or not.
I wrote out a reply to you about why Israel would pursue destroying Iran's nuclear infrastructure but then realized you yourself fell victim to your accusations against the media. The US...
I wrote out a reply to you about why Israel would pursue destroying Iran's nuclear infrastructure but then realized you yourself fell victim to your accusations against the media.
this framing that Iran is somehow moments away from developing and deploying a nuclear weapon, even though there is no evidence of that being the case. In fact, US intelligence said the opposite just a few months ago.
The US intelligence community said no such thing. The media (your linked source) makes it sound like Trump and Gabbard are at odds here, but they're talking about different things. The claim is that Iran is "very close" to having a nuclear weapon. The article and the linked US report state that Iran is not currently building a nuclear weapon. Both things can be true!
Iran has, in the last decade, gotten very good at missile technology. Iran has also enriched a lot of uranium to a point that it doesn't need for energy, but is on the way to building a bomb. Iran has not, to the US intelligence community's knowledge, re-started its program to build a nuclear weapon. But Iran has the pieces that it would need in order to build a nuclear weapon and those pieces can theoretically be assembled in a relatively short period of time. The Israelis are worried about the latter. The article says "but they haven't started building a weapon!" as if that should somehow assuage everyone.
We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so. In the past year, there has been an erosion of a decades-long taboo on discussing nuclear weapons in public that has emboldened nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decisionmaking apparatus. Khamenei remains the final decisionmaker over Iran’s nuclear program, to include any decision to develop nuclear weapons.
EDIT: Your Axios article even points this out, but I didn't notice it on first "read" because I hate Axios articles with a passion due to their garbage format.
To add to your point, it may be the case that Iran is close to being able to make a few nukes in a crash program (that could be used against Israel). I’d say it’s likely given the fact the fission...
To add to your point, it may be the case that Iran is close to being able to make a few nukes in a crash program (that could be used against Israel). I’d say it’s likely given the fact the fission weapons are a 1940s technology. At the same time, they are almost certainly years away from scaling up to a weapons complex that serially produces nuclear weapons that aren’t just bespoke experiments (and can be placed on ballistic missiles). It took the U.S. until the early 1950s to move away from wartime infrastructure to a more sustainable, mass production nuclear weapons complex.
That's actually why I used the Axios article in the first place haha. I'm not a huge fan, either, but I thought it'd be easier than linking to the full report. I'm not a scientist or anything, but...
That's actually why I used the Axios article in the first place haha. I'm not a huge fan, either, but I thought it'd be easier than linking to the full report.
I'm not a scientist or anything, but from what I've read/heard, Iran is anywhere between 1-3 years from having the ability to strike Israel with a nuclear weapon. This readable, less-shitty article has similar figures.
Maybe it's a difference in semantics, or our own red lines or whatever, but I think it's still too early to blow past diplomatic options (no pun intended) and it doesn't match the rhetoric from Israel and some of the media that implies Iran is on the cusp of nuking Tel Aviv. It's also why I think it's important to highlight the ulterior motives that Netanyahu seems to have, which is regime change/state-building.
The Arab states disagree. The new Syrian government has been conspicuously silent about recent events because they resent Iran for propping up the Assad regime for over a decade. The Gulf states...
That's not true. Iran serves as the main destabilizing force to America's interests in the region. It's an important distinction to make.
The Arab states disagree. The new Syrian government has been conspicuously silent about recent events because they resent Iran for propping up the Assad regime for over a decade. The Gulf states publicly condemn Israel but privately are aligned with Israel in their collective desire to contain Iran, which is the sleeping regional lion and will become the dominant regional power if left unchecked.
Saudi Arabia's crown prince has stated that they will develop nukes if Iran acquires them. Iran's nuclear program 100% will spark an arms race in the Middle East. Germany's chancellor said that Israel was doing the dirty work for the international community: the Arab states, Europe, and even Russia have interests against Iran. They see its containment as necessary, and diplomacy has run out.
Russia is an interesting case: despite their public cooperation, Russia and Iran deeply mistrust each other. They just freshly signed and ratified a strategic defense and economic treaty, and Russia has already shown that it's not really committed to it because its relationships with the Gulf states are more important.
The coverage is different because the conflicts are different. Israel and Iran have been engaged in conflict for the past 40 years. I think that recent events surprise very few people, given that...
The coverage is different because the conflicts are different. Israel and Iran have been engaged in conflict for the past 40 years. I think that recent events surprise very few people, given that nuclear talks have been going on for 20 years with little progress. Despite Israel's best efforts to hamper Iran's nuclear program through espionage, Iran's nuclear program must be very nearly complete now. For comparison, the original Manhattan Project took only 4~5 years.
Democrats blame Trump for pulling out of the nuclear deal, but apart from Republican detractors of Obama's deal, there are many critics in foreign policy who deemed the deal to be objectively weak and flawed and didn't provide a long-term solution; its clauses were to be expire in a few years anyway. Neither Democrats nor Republicans nor the international community have been able to imagine anything more than milquetoast diplomatic solutions to what's effectively become a generational blood feud between the two countries.
Iran’s semiofficial Tasnim News Agency confirmed the deaths of prominent military commanders and nuclear scientists in Israel’s strikes.
It reported that Maj. Gen. Hossein Salami, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, was killed, along with another senior IRGC commander, Maj. Gen. Gholam Ali Rashid.
The agency also reported the deaths of Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi and Fereydoon Abbasi, whom the agency identified as “two prominent Iranian nuclear scientists.”
Israel spent years preparing for the operation against Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, a security official tells The Times of Israel, including building a drone base inside Iran and smuggling precision weapons systems and commandos into the country.
Israeli attacks leave Iranians fearful and hopeful (Washington Post) But here is another reaction: Not very likely! But I don’t think it’s hard to find people who use such rhetoric? When I was...
When Israel launched its sustained assault on Iran’s nuclear program and military leaders early Friday, Sareh began cycling through a range of emotions.
“I felt happiness,” the Iranian woman said, at the deaths of leaders who had long repressed the country’s people.
“Then disbelief,” she continued from her home in the northern city of Rasht. “Then some worry for what would happen next. Then happiness again, for how much power these people felt they had over us, how many of us they killed.” Like others interviewed for this report, she spoke on the condition that her last name be withheld for fear of retaliation from the government.
But here is another reaction:
Participants in a pro-government demonstration Saturday in Tehran told a state television journalist that they wanted the harshest response possible against Israel.
“We won’t relent until the complete destruction of Israel,” said a woman in a black and white checked scarf that indicates support for Iran’s security forces. “It’s not a question of revenge. Israel must be wiped off the page of time forever.”
Not very likely! But I don’t think it’s hard to find people who use such rhetoric?
When I was younger, I remember there were blowhards who would make jokes about nuking Iraq, but I haven’t heard anything like that in a while.
I sincerely hope so. The boomer Americans I personally know are crazy for escalation with China and peace via absolute domination with war for countries they can "easily take". There seems to be a...
I sincerely hope so.
The boomer Americans I personally know are crazy for escalation with China and peace via absolute domination with war for countries they can "easily take".
There seems to be a party line divide, (YouGov) polled that only 37-38% Republican say Afghanistan Iraq were mistakes.
I would venture to guess at least a solid 20% Americans would favour war right now.
Israel's military says Iran has launched dozens of ballistic missiles. Explosions were heard over Jerusalem, and smoke rose from Tel Aviv. DW has the latest.
It's hard not to conclude that Netanyahu is willing to plunge the world into chaos just to hold onto power and avoid prison.
Netanyahu has been nothing but a disaster for not just the Israel-Palestine, not just the Middle-East, but the world in general by this point. He's extremely competent in doing everything he can to stay in power and avoid consequences of his own actions, and I'm pretty impressed by just how far and how shrewd he's willing to go.
If you consider his entire political career as a way to gain power, avoid consequences, he's done an amazing job. He influences the media through corruption, edges the genocide in Gaza to delay any election and removal of power, drags other countries in the mess, and uses the hostages of Hamas to have the bare minimum of plausible deniability(even after it's obvious it's not about hostages anymore, or October 7th imo). And by using the antisemitism card so much he's even effectively dragged Jewish people outside of Israel into this, when they're already fucking struggling themselves with this whole mess.
Absolutely disgusting, and also really impressive. He doesn't even seem to care how he ends up in the history books. Anything for him in the here and now. And I thought I hated the Kgremlin and the fermented mandarin.
And he's only been steepening that plunge for years now.
The decades can stop happening any time now.Some interesting related reading- may be the first time in a while Israel has bombed something without the full support of the U.S. Administration: https://www.axios.com/2025/06/12/trump-iran-israel-strikes-nuclear-maga
There's a strange bit from that article:
Implying that someone who believes Israel controls American politicians should be grouped with antisemites is bad-faith reporting IMO.
To be fair, the idea that Israel controls American politicians is ludicrous and does play into antisemitic conspiracy theories. US politicians support Israel because it materially benefits both US foreign interests and often those politicians' personal goals. Even if we set aside the long history of antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jews running the world (and we probably shouldn't when we're choosing our rhetoric about this particular issue), pretending that Israel is a shadowy cabal controlling US politicians absolves US politicians themselves of far too much responsibility in the choices they make and the things they vote for/sign.
That side of being anti-Israel is mostly like, bog-standard Jews-run-the-world antisemitism. The author's playing a bit fast and loose but is not entirely inaccurate.
For sure, saying that there's a Jewish conspiracy running the world is clearly antisemitic but saying that there's an Israeli lobby controlling American politics is something completely different.
Influencing by lobbying and "controlling" are very different levels, and I'd call the latter a conspiracy theory without significantly more evidence than "they donate money"
The Israeli lobby is far from just any other lobby, however. I wouldn't seriously fault anyone for using the term "control" to describe the influence it has on the American political process.
AIPAC and related orgs do have tremendous and adverse influence in US politics. That being said, surely this can be articulated in a way that does not, consciously or not, dip into antisemitic imagery or verbiage. At the very least doing so distracts from the very real problem that AIPAC has tremendous and adverse influence in US politics.
It is certainly the case that pro-Israel people in the US fall back on claims of anti-semitism when it is not warranted. That does not mean of course that every such claim is false, and given the history of the “Jews control xyz country” I personally try to stay away from such wording, and would personally fault others for insisting on it once they’ve been informed.
Then I'd take the original sentence literally and not conflate hyperbole with the types of people mentioned.
I have zero interest in discussing Israel itself.
I'm well aware, and also wholly disinterested in debating Israel on the internet.
I don't think what you described equates to "Israel controlling US politicians." Quite the opposite.
Christian Fundies, always trying to fuck it up for the rest of us.
This sure looks like it's going to be a mess. It could be another "you hit us, we hit you, we both back down" exchange, but this certainly feels different.
I'm assuming that they hit nuclear facilities, so we'll see how Iran responds, and I'm not sure exactly who's in position to stop another massive ballistic missile attack if that's the way they go.
Edit-
Reminder that of course, misinformation/noise/propaganda will be everywhere in the coming hours, that said the main things i'm seeing:
edit 2:
So yeah, I don't see how this doesn't end in serious violence and most likely full out war.
Edit 3:
Seeing reports that Iran will declare war, which seems like the only option given the scale of the attack.
Edit 4:
Iranian drones have been confirmed heading towards Israel. Should arrive in 4-5 hours? Likely the first wave of a coordinated attack, we'll see if there's ballistic and cruise missile support timed to hit at the same time in I believe an hour or so.
A similar scale attack as last time might do a LOT more damage this time as I believe before they gave some warning so there was time to position.
What does a war between Iran and Israel actually look like though, considering they don't share a border? Traditionally Iran has fought Israel through Hamas and Hizbollah, but those are both shadows of their former selves at the moment.
Welllp i'm late to this, but uh...yeah what's going on now?
Lots of long range strikes. Iran is probably going to try to just saturation bomb Israel targeting both military targets and possibly large population centers.
Considering that huge shipment of missiles diverted from Ukraine to
Israel(maybe not, cannot find a source for that) last week, I call bullshit on this. Israel is also saying the opposite. I think the only way this statement could be honest would be if there was already a split in the US government and the more sane faction decided to not tell the less sane faction who would likely leak the information and make the situation worse.edit: Trump on Truth Social confirms he knew about it.
In case anyone was wondering, this seems to be from a Wall Street Journal story:
...
...
https://archive.is/fJ1Jx
Although he calls them "missiles", this seems to be confirmed by an interview Zelensky did with ABC news:
Zelenskyy: US diverting 20,000 missiles promised for Ukraine to the Middle East
...
But neither story says anything about them being transferred to Israel.
Good point, unfortunately I don't remember where I read that, I'm going to edit the comment.
To be fair, this is very different than "involved."
Edit: to be fair to you, I guess it depends on what you mean by involved. Generally when people say this they mean "didn't participate in the strikes or provide support to the strikes", but if you were to argue that the US supplying so many arms to Israel tacitly means the US is involved, I would understand that.
I would argue that, if they knew what Israel was going to do with them, which it seem like they obviously did.
Some unverifiable back channels claim that Trump did not like it and tried to persuade Netanyahu to not do it though. (and then after it happened used it to try to make himself look good, but that part is expected)
I kinda already commented on this but there are, technically, pretty clear and accepted definitions of "involved" from a geopolitical and military standard, and I think the original quote was referencing that kind of defintion.
It would mean that the US did not provide intelligence, systems help, satellite information, their own forces, etc.
Again though unfortunately between the complete lack of media accountability and a total shitshow of an admin it's anyones guess.
Yeah I didn't buy it either, but it's what they had said.
That said there are different levels of "involvement" when talking militarily. They might actually mean "we were aware of the strike and provided no direct support" but with this admin it's fucking impossible to track anything anyways.
Trump on Truth Social:
So much for US not being involved.
A few years ago, I made a comment about the difference between US media's coverage of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and they way they cover America-backed violence in the Middle East. If the past 20 months have not been a clear enough example of manufacturing consent, the next few days of coverage should hopefully do the trick.
Absent from the coverage I've seen so far are questions and statements like: Does Iran have a right to exist? Do you condemn Netanyahu? Or: Iran has a right to defend itself!
Instead, we are getting everything told through the US/Israeli perspective that Iran was a few days away from developing
WMDsnuclear weapons. Now that Iran has retaliated, everything going forward is going to be about how Iran is the aggressor. The "experts" and "analysts" on television will be limited to IDF spokespersons and lobbyists for American defense contractors. And the ongoing genocide and starvation campaign that Israel is perpetrating in Gaza will be an afterthought - not that it was ever that big of a deal in the first place.Edit: Almost forgot to honor the recently (and not so recently) departed. It's finally happening, boys.
Edit 2: goddamn, this shit is effective
For most countries, there is no question about their "right to exist." Historically, some countries have disappeared, either permanently or temporarily (e.g. Poland), but this is now very rare. It's normal that nobody talks that way about countries, even when at war. Defeating an enemy doesn't normally mean eliminating them. So there's nothing to explain.
It would be particularly weird to talk that way about Iran. These are pretty intense airstrikes, but nobody thinks there will be an invasion.
So it doesn't come up, except for Israel and Palestine, because the rhetoric and actual fighting are far more extreme.
That question is asked specifically about Israel.
Maybe there are a handful of examples one can find of the opposite, but the overwhelming majority of the coverage since October 7 has included questions like that, directed specifically at those who criticize Israel and the IDF. We even saw a version of it last week in the NYC mayoral primary debate.
The reason why that question exists, and why it is asked so often, is that it helps to frame every military act by the IDF as a defensive one, regardless of its severity or who is victimized in the process.
Palestinians, on the other hand, are not afforded the same protections. Time and time again, in the wake of October 7, whenever someone spoke out against Israel bombing children or blowing up hospitals, they were asked if they condemn Hamas. It's as if being appalled by Oct 7 and IDF war crimes are somehow mutually exclusive.
Again, that's not the only way in which the media reframes the conversation about Israel's violence against Palestinians. There's also the under/over reporting of casualties, the use of passive voice and different adjectives to describe casualties, the imbalance of perspectives among guests, biased sources, etc. It's an older article, but The Intercept did some analysis of the media coverage after October 7, if you're interested. I'm sure there's more recent work out there to support their findings.
I don't think it was intentional, but I feel like your focus on that one particular question misses the larger point that I was trying to make, which is that mainstream American press covers international conflicts from a perspective that benefits the interests of the US State Department. Violence and war should be covered critically and objectively, regardless of the parties involved.
I resent the
WMDsimplication because it was not just the US and Israel, it was also the UN, to which Iran replied that it's going to build a new enrichment facility with advanced centrifuges. The statement that Iran is building nuclear weapons is not a controversial one, the controversy is merely in how to respond to that.And from historical reasons I can understand why Khamenei is doing it. But Iranian regime is an oppressive one that also funds foreign terrorists and serves as the main destabilizing force in the region, se he won't be allowed to actually do it and that's quite likely to prevent things worse than what's happening now.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
The fact that this is the baseline attitude shows the efficacy and outcome of mainstream western reporting. You even recognize the reasons why Iran would seek to develop nuclear weapons, yet the rest of the comment frames Israel's strikes as defensive. Why? How?
For starters, lets look at this morning's coverage of the conflict:
(Judging by your link, I'm assuming you are probably from the EU, so forgive me for limiting my examples to American outlets but it's what I'm familiar with and what my focus was in my original comments)
Here's ABC reporting from Tel Aviv and showing the destruction caused by Iranian strikes. No mention that Israel struck first, no mention of collateral damage in Israel's strikes in Tehran. No mention of what Iran was trying to hit.
CBS did a better job of at least mentioning that Israel struck first and that there are casualties on both sides, but notice some of the "subtle" differences. Israel's strikes, again, are all on military targets while Iranian strikes are in neighborhoods. Netanyahu isn't popular, but neither is The Regime. Israel's population is fleeing to bomb shelters while Iranians stay out in the open because of The Regime. It's "painful" for Israel to inflict casualties. All of the b-roll footage is from Israel. When discussing peace options, the prospects seem bleak, in part because Russia has a conflict of interest, but also because Iran "sees" the US as a supplier of Israel's weapons (somehow, the US does not have a conflict of interest).
CBS at least showed footage of Iranian state TV being hit by a missile a- Oh. Nevermind, they spent the next 2/3 of the video laying out Israel's justification for the strike.
CNN threw a little humanity towards the Iranians, but that was dwarfed by images from Israel and an extensive interview with Naftali Bennett! And that's just them getting started! Later in the day, they had Yoav Gallant on for a half-hour interview where he made the case for the US to get involved.
NBC seems a lot better in comparison, but let's contrast that with something from Al Jazeera, Democracy Now or Drop Site. Notice any differences? Could you imagine seeing something like this in mainstream American news?
Maybe TV isn't your thing. If that's the case, scroll down a little bit to skybrian's link from the Washington Post, which portrays the Iranians as bloodthirsty maniacs. Or, you can hop on over to the front page and comb over their coverage which, again, reinforces the narrative that Israel is merely defending itself. This despite the fact that Israel struck first, has rejected negotiations, and is led by a literal war criminal.
Reminder that Israel has killed and maimed tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians and has displaced and starved hundreds of thousands more, yet they are never portrayed as an aggressor. Iran, on the other hand, is always portrayed as the aggressor. There are enough examples of this double standard to fill several books, but I think this tweet by Muhammad Shehada highlights the absurdity perfectly:
Lastly, I need to address one more crucial thing.
That's not true. Iran serves as the main destabilizing force to America's interests in the region. It's an important distinction to make. If we were to rank the main destabilizing forces in the Middle East, the list would begin and end with the United States. Maybe an honorable mention to the British for the legacy they left behind. The US invaded two separate countries and occupied them for roughly 20 years. The US has armed and backed countless militias, dictatorships, religious fundamentalists, and future terrorist organizations over the last 70-80 years. The US has been the primary weapons supplier to not one but two governments that have perpetrated genocide in the last decade. Hell, the US is directly tied to the existence of the Iranian government. One of the primary reasons for the Iranian Revolution and the regime that took over afterwards was American meddling, which is highlighted by a coup that the CIA instigated!
You talk about everything but the actual issue. What's on TV in Israeli-aligned countries like the US or in coutries allied to Iran like Qatar, or what's Israel's image and track record regarding Gaza is a separate argument that I don't think I touched and I'm not interested in doing so.
Regarding Iran itself:
Why would those two things be in conflict? Obviously when a regime I consider to be dangerous or evil is about to get into a much more advantageous geopolitical position, that is a bad thing regardless of reason.
I don't agree with everything here, but sure, I'm not going to apologize US invading Afghanistan or Iraq, or the Soviets invading Afghanistan or other things that happened. However the situation before the October 7 attacks was that Israel was slowly increasing ties with most of its neighbors despite past conflicts, which was about to bring unprecedented stability to the region, and the main opposition to that stability was Iran and proxy groups funded by Iran.
I'm not interested in labeling who's the good guy and the bad guy. I'm saying that until recently the development of the status quo in the region was looking quite promising comparatively to any period in recent history, despite obvious exceptions like the situation in Palestine itself, and Iran is the main force in the region striving to break that.
The other thing is, regardless of what you think of the above argument, Iran unquestionably is more autocratic than Israel. Israel is still a democratic country and has a chance to reform itself. Its current government is terrible, but remember that before the crisis started by Oct 7 there were repeated large protests against the government's reforms going on for months. Iran doesn't have this option, it's being led by a parallel non-elected theocratic structure that violently oppresses its own citizens, aside from funding foreign terrorist groups. Iranian society itself is split on this issue and a large part sees its government as just as evil as we do.
A regime like that having access to nukes is not in anybody's interest. And I honestly don't think this position is very controversial, which is perhaps why you wrote about everything but this basic problem.
Iran is still much more democratic than any of the Gulf monarchies that we help prop up. I believe some pressure against Iran is necessary, but regime change is not wise and, if it fails, will nearly guarantee that Iran will pursue a nuke, hell or high water. This is despite the fact they were previously enriching uranium primarily just for deterrence and stated clearly (including in a fatwa from Khamenei) that that the use of any weapon of mass destruction was religiously forbidden and that they would rather not have a nuke. Worse yet, we'll give another clear lesson to the rest of the world that you should never give up a chance to build a nuke if it arises (which it did arise for Iran on several occasions).
Well, before I say anything else, I just want to thank you for taking the time to write a thorough response. It's a nice feeling whenever you put some effort into a comment and someone responds thoughtfully. As for your response, I have a few thoughts. Respectfully, of course.
First of all, I am writing about the issue. I set the issue. My original comment was about American media manufacturing consent for war with Iran. Up until the very end of my comment, I was focused on that issue and how it might influence public opinion. I used a relevant portion of your comment to illustrate how the media supports that narrative without offering any other explanation, context, or perspective.
Now it seems like I've opened the door to a conversation about the conflict itself and the supposed justification.
It shouldn't be. Israel and Netanyahu have been trying to drum up support for this exact cause since the 1990s. Israel's history of violence and brutality, Netanyahu's status as a war criminal, and his long held desire to bomb Iran should all play a role in evaluating the legitimacy of his claims.
I think I might've misunderstood your original line about why Iran would seek to develop a nuclear weapon, so hear me out. Imagine for a moment that you are Iranian. And you're not some crazed Muslim who wants to bathe in the blood of Jews and thinks women should stoned for showing their ankles, but actually a relatively reasonable person. You've seen Iraq get destroyed and occupied, you've seen Afghanistan under occupation for nearly 40 years, you've seen foreign powers meddle and stir up conflicts in Syria, Libya, Jordan, Yemen, and Egypt, and of course, you are familiar with your own country's history of foreign interference. You also look further southwest and see a similar pattern all across Africa and Latin America. Then you look Pakistan, and Russia, and China, and you notice that despite having various periods of heightened tensions with Western powers, they have been able to maintain their autonomy in a way that no one else has. Maybe it's in your best interest to get what they've got. Maybe Iran is developing nukes, not for bloodlust and conquest, but out of self-preservation.
Now does that mean that I personally think it would be good for everyone to have nukes? Of course not. But if our goal is nuclear non-proliferation, then we need to look closer at the actions of nuclear-armed countries and see how they might contribute to other countries arming themselves. Maybe if we examined the history of the region with a little more depth, we might come to better understand the root of these problems.
Furthermore, when it comes to the subject of Iran having nuclear weapons, we are once again automatically in this framing that Iran is somehow moments away from developing and deploying a nuclear weapon, even though there is no evidence of that being the case. In fact, US intelligence said the opposite just a few months ago. THAT is the controversy. THAT is why I am so focused on manufactured consent. Because a literal war criminal is able to recklessly bomb a foreign country without any evidence to support his justification and our immediate reaction is to just throw up our hands and say, "Well, he's right. Can't let them have nukes," even though we've already seen how this plays out should it escalate.
This is a confusing set of standards. On one hand, we're glossing over war crimes, apartheid, and genocide because the perpetrator is a democracy and had protests? If anything, shouldn't they be held to a higher standard because they voted for that? On the other hand, Iran, which has objectively done less terrible things in recent years, is somehow worse because of its government's structure and/or its opposition to the countries that consistently attack everyone else in the region. How does any of that justify an unprovoked attack?
Also, not that it's a big deal, but where does Saudi Arabia fit in all of this? They're an oppressive, theocratic monarchy that has (famously) caused terror and (less famously) caused destruction in the region. Should they be next?
To be clear, I am not going to sit here and say that Iran's government is good. It stands against nearly every one of my personal values. But I am opposed to changing that via foreign military intervention, just as I would be opposed to China blowing up half the eastern seaboard in an effort to oust the Trump administration. Iran is a sovereign country, its change needs to come from within. Military intervention on the pretense that it might possibly someday have the potential to attack an adversary is unjustified. How any of this is somehow a conversation after Iraq is baffling to me.
The problem is you wrote about it seemingly without worrying what the reality is. Forgive me if I assumed too much, but your WMDs remark most of all seemed to imply that the whole issue may be manufactured, similar with mentioning "experts" in quotation marks etc. Talking about the coverage in this way without putting it in context of what's happening and what's the current situation like is, ironically, a functional and often used propaganda tool, which is why I took issue.
Regarding Iran's reasoning for developing nuclear weapons: no, I understand this. The unfortunate reality is that nukes are a great deterrent and Khamenei is understandably worried about foreign influence due to past experience. Another unfortunate reality is that Iran having this leverage is against the interests of everyone else. We were unable to prevent Kim Jong Un from getting nukes, but we will sure as hell try to prevent Iran at least.
Also I think it's worth noting that this thing was avoidable. Iran could have kept international observers and not replied saying basically "well I'm now going to enrich even harder!".
Regarding whether Iran is building nuclear weapons or not, others have replied to that.
I am not entirely sure if they should be held to a higher standard or not, but regardless of that I believe that generally, historically, they have been by most of the world except US establishment and the cetrist and right wing part of the population which tends to do the opposite (and maybe a couple other small allies like Czechia).
Saudi Arabia somewhat calming down their foreign policy and establishing new relations with Israel was precisely what Iran tried to disrupt and was possibly one of the reasons for the Oct 7 attacks. I do find some of their internal politics disgusting just like with Iran, but again, Iran would be much less of a problem if it did not fund terrorist groups in other countries and disrupt relations in the region, which Saudi Arabia currently does significantly less.
You present this as a black & white situation, but it isn't.
I'm saying this as a citizen of a post-communist country which was fortunate enough to eventually break out on its own because the communist regime was incompetent enough to very slowly crumble, but that was after 40 years, and 35 years later we still have not fully recovered. We also tried to relax and liberalize the regime after 20 years, howeve this attempt was stopped by a full on invasion led by the Soviets. I wish the US interfered more because the dissent always existed but the country was led by a minority of autocrats who imprisoned or murdered opposition. Radio Free Europe and Voice of America, nowadays described by redditors as disgusting propaganda, were one of the few available windows into the outside world, sources of information much less biased than our own.
Iran is not the same, but from everything I've read about it Iranian society seems to be somewhat closer to us than to Iraq or Afghanistan - lots of will to do things differently, a more liberal time still in the collective memory and true hardliners seemingly being a minority, though not a tiny one.
So if a direct interference happens, it may just be taking out the parallel undemocratic religious structures and letting actual democracy happen. It may also turn out much worse, but it's unlikely to end up as Iraq or Afghanistan, because the starting situation is very different and also because as stupid and chaotic as Trump is, the US is unlikely to do the same mistake again - if only because it seems unnecessary in this case. Israeli intelligence is iirc claiming there's only one site for uranium enrichment left and international observers agree with that - the problem is just that Israel does not have the means to get to it since it's possibly up to a couple hundred meters underground. But there doesn't seem to be attempts at justifying a ground invasion, and a large part of the population would not go to voluntarily fight for the regime's defense either.
It is and it isn't. I elaborated on this more in my reply to gary, but the bottom line is there is a difference between the narrative presented and the reality when it comes to Iran's nuclear capabilities. To elaborate a little further on my use of scare quotes around 'experts,' I did that because they're brought on to give people the impression that the whole story is being presented, yet they do not provide context beyond the narrative that benefits the IDF or interests of military contractors. Again, if you look at the expert analysis on, say, CNN, and compare it to something like Democracy Now, you see a huge difference.
I respect your perspective as someone from a former Eastern Bloc country (Czechoslovakia?), and you're right about the different circumstances your country faced, and some of the cultural differences between Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, but I think you have a very very optimistic view about this.
Wild hypotheticals aside, 20th century American intervention/regime change/nation building/whatever in Europe might've eventually resembled something close to the Marshall Plan, which could've been beneficial...assuming everything went to plan and we all avoided WW3. A Trump-run regime change in Iran, however, would most likely mirror the "Shock Doctrine" treatment that 21st century America put on Iraq.
Given the size constraints and the fact that we supply 70% of Israel's weaponry, the only way that this happens is if the US in on board as a full participant. There is absolutely no way America participates in a conflict of that scale without making sure that (a) a friendly government emerges, and (b) lots of money is made in the process. While Trump's politics are much more isolationist on the surface, his policies are driven by the same principles of mass privatization that the Bush 2 admin championed. It's been on full-display here in America at levels that Bush & co could only dream about, and it was on Trump's vision board for Gaza. For that reason, I have a hard time believing it would be anything other than open season for contractors, sub-contractors, and sub-sub contractors looking for quick cash after a devastating military campaign while Iranians stand on the sideline in despair just like their Iraqi neighbors did 20 years ago. Whatever goodwill Iranians have (which at the moment, doesn't seem to be much) would quickly fade as they watch their neighborhoods turn to rubble.
Yes, that is a possible outcome as well for sure. I just think the potential for instability and complete state breakdown is considerably lower here, also for various other reasons not mentioned above - for example there's a relatively large number of Iranian elites living abroad (a lot of academics and obscenely wealthy businessmen), many of whom are waiting to go back if the regime changes.
Well, we'll see how it turns out whether we want it or not.
I wrote out a reply to you about why Israel would pursue destroying Iran's nuclear infrastructure but then realized you yourself fell victim to your accusations against the media.
The US intelligence community said no such thing. The media (your linked source) makes it sound like Trump and Gabbard are at odds here, but they're talking about different things. The claim is that Iran is "very close" to having a nuclear weapon. The article and the linked US report state that Iran is not currently building a nuclear weapon. Both things can be true!
Iran has, in the last decade, gotten very good at missile technology. Iran has also enriched a lot of uranium to a point that it doesn't need for energy, but is on the way to building a bomb. Iran has not, to the US intelligence community's knowledge, re-started its program to build a nuclear weapon. But Iran has the pieces that it would need in order to build a nuclear weapon and those pieces can theoretically be assembled in a relatively short period of time. The Israelis are worried about the latter. The article says "but they haven't started building a weapon!" as if that should somehow assuage everyone.
From the report (PDF):
EDIT: Your Axios article even points this out, but I didn't notice it on first "read" because I hate Axios articles with a passion due to their garbage format.
To add to your point, it may be the case that Iran is close to being able to make a few nukes in a crash program (that could be used against Israel). I’d say it’s likely given the fact the fission weapons are a 1940s technology. At the same time, they are almost certainly years away from scaling up to a weapons complex that serially produces nuclear weapons that aren’t just bespoke experiments (and can be placed on ballistic missiles). It took the U.S. until the early 1950s to move away from wartime infrastructure to a more sustainable, mass production nuclear weapons complex.
That's actually why I used the Axios article in the first place haha. I'm not a huge fan, either, but I thought it'd be easier than linking to the full report.
I'm not a scientist or anything, but from what I've read/heard, Iran is anywhere between 1-3 years from having the ability to strike Israel with a nuclear weapon. This readable, less-shitty article has similar figures.
Maybe it's a difference in semantics, or our own red lines or whatever, but I think it's still too early to blow past diplomatic options (no pun intended) and it doesn't match the rhetoric from Israel and some of the media that implies Iran is on the cusp of nuking Tel Aviv. It's also why I think it's important to highlight the ulterior motives that Netanyahu seems to have, which is regime change/state-building.
The Arab states disagree. The new Syrian government has been conspicuously silent about recent events because they resent Iran for propping up the Assad regime for over a decade. The Gulf states publicly condemn Israel but privately are aligned with Israel in their collective desire to contain Iran, which is the sleeping regional lion and will become the dominant regional power if left unchecked.
Saudi Arabia's crown prince has stated that they will develop nukes if Iran acquires them. Iran's nuclear program 100% will spark an arms race in the Middle East. Germany's chancellor said that Israel was doing the dirty work for the international community: the Arab states, Europe, and even Russia have interests against Iran. They see its containment as necessary, and diplomacy has run out.
Russia is an interesting case: despite their public cooperation, Russia and Iran deeply mistrust each other. They just freshly signed and ratified a strategic defense and economic treaty, and Russia has already shown that it's not really committed to it because its relationships with the Gulf states are more important.
The coverage is different because the conflicts are different. Israel and Iran have been engaged in conflict for the past 40 years. I think that recent events surprise very few people, given that nuclear talks have been going on for 20 years with little progress. Despite Israel's best efforts to hamper Iran's nuclear program through espionage, Iran's nuclear program must be very nearly complete now. For comparison, the original Manhattan Project took only 4~5 years.
Democrats blame Trump for pulling out of the nuclear deal, but apart from Republican detractors of Obama's deal, there are many critics in foreign policy who deemed the deal to be objectively weak and flawed and didn't provide a long-term solution; its clauses were to be expire in a few years anyway. Neither Democrats nor Republicans nor the international community have been able to imagine anything more than milquetoast diplomatic solutions to what's effectively become a generational blood feud between the two countries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/06/12/israel-attacks-iran-tehran-explosions/#link-OULS6HSZIJG77EI5N2T3OSWTBE
Mossad set up drone base in Iran; UAVs were activated overnight to strike surface-to-surface missile launchers aimed at Israel (Times of Israel)
Israeli attacks leave Iranians fearful and hopeful (Washington Post)
But here is another reaction:
Not very likely! But I don’t think it’s hard to find people who use such rhetoric?
When I was younger, I remember there were blowhards who would make jokes about nuking Iraq, but I haven’t heard anything like that in a while.
Post 9/11? Those were very different times. The American fervour for war is gone now.
I sincerely hope so.
The boomer Americans I personally know are crazy for escalation with China and peace via absolute domination with war for countries they can "easily take".
There seems to be a party line divide, (YouGov) polled that only 37-38% Republican say Afghanistan Iraq were mistakes.
I would venture to guess at least a solid 20% Americans would favour war right now.
Blasts over Jerusalem as Israel says Iran launch missiles (DW)