73
votes
US bombers strike nuclear sites in Iran
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Israel-Iran live updates: Trump envoy in correspondence with Iranian officials, White House says
- Published
- Jun 21 2025
- Word count
- 556 words
Kind of disappointed by some of the hemming and hawing in this thread about Donald Trump unconstitutionally giving Netanyahu an assist here.
I would like to remind everyone that there is one rogue state ruled by expansionist religious fundamentalists in the Middle East with nukes right now, and it's not Iran (or Saudi Arabia.) Said country also a comic, Soviet-style dead hand doctrine to enable them to glass any country in retaliation for an invasion.
Here's Senator van Hollen, a veteran Middle East diplomat, also confirming that at least according to his briefings "The U.S. intelligence community has repeatedly assessed that Iran [was] not building a nuclear weapon. There was more time for diplomacy to work.": https://bsky.app/profile/vanhollen.senate.gov/post/3ls5yetl6wk2o
After Israel and America's strikes, you can bet your ass they'll be doing everything they can to get a nuclear weapon now if only as a deterrent, further destabilizing the region for the benefit of just Netanyahu's dogshit cabinet. No more wars my ass.
Why on Earth would Iran have a massive concrete bunker for nuclear research if not atomic weapons? Why bother sabotaging centrifuges if they're not being used? Why would anyone make a nuclear non-proliferation deal with them if Iran didn't have the capability and desire to make nuclear weapons?
We can hem and haw over whether they were actively building a working nuclear missile, but that's clearly missing the forest for the trees.
There was a peaceful way to resolve all this. Trump shouldn't have blown up the last nuclear deal, but it's impossible to believe Iran wasn't actively working on nuclear weapons.
As I’ve said a few times in this topic it’s not even a debate if Iran was perusing nukes. It’s a well established fact that’s not even denied by Iran or the international community.
This is where I honestly can’t tell if it’s ignorance, extremism, or what but just because Israel bothered to name their “fuck you you’re coming with me” doctrine doesn’t make it comical.
This is the known stance of EVERY nuclear nation. Israel, NK, and Pakistan are the only ones under enough conventional military threat to do something like this without nukes flying
I have upset some people and that is not what I come to Tildes to do. I want this community to continue to be pleasant.
I deleted the original contents of this comment and deleted all of my replies. I have summarized my main thesis (in a kinder way) and expanded upon this explanation here for the curious.
Sounds like America is fighting on the wrong side.
Yes.....free and liberal Iran.
I really don't see how you come to this conclusion. You could say we should stay out of it maybe, but really? Because the Iranian regime is so free, tolerant, and generous with its population....
Ultimately I don't think any of this really has much to do with ethical issues and is being decided more along strategic lines, but even if you're going to argue along those lines I don't see how you wind up supporting Iran.
The quote was
Israel is an unstable country led by right wing ethno-nationalists that regularly use religious references to justify their atrocities. They have nukes and are backed by a coalition of religious fundementalists in the west.
It's not that I support Iran. I support peace, liberty, and diplomacy. I see that the ends don't justify the means, especially if it wasnt necessary in the first place.
Everyone is so quick to bring up their moral/ethical opposition to the Iranian regime. If that's where you stand, fine - just be consistent.
The thing is: Israel was far more liberal before Bibi corrupted the hell out of it.
Iran was also far more liberal and democratic before the US installed a vassal governor in the Shah.
@Wolf_359 I strongly disagree that Islam is a more opressive/violent/what have you religion. I’ll invite you to review Christianity’s awful history, and Islam’s many beautiful and peaceful traditions. The issue is not the religion, or “Religion,” but rather very human takeovers of religious symbols, and in the case of Islam, often in reaction to “liberal” governments colonial activity.
I would reframe it as that Islam as a religion and culture has been much better at being a religion. What I mean by that is that Islamic followers have stayed far truer to their cultural norms than modern Christians have. I have Muslim and Christian friends, and there is just a world of difference between the level of devotion.
Even the least devout Muslim does far more inconvenient things for the sake of their beliefs - the prayers, the dietary restrictions, and so forth. Meanwhile most Christians, like, give up candy for lent or something.
There's a lot of theological research into this. One theory is that outward expressions of religion are more likely to cause children to become religious as well. Some of Islam's very public pillars, like the prayers, therefore are more effective than the comparative lack of public displays in Christian doctrine.
But either way, that does have an effect on each religions compatibility with modern, humanist philosophies. Because, in the end, modern humanism is very different than cultural practices which began 1 C.E or 610 C.E. That's a lot of time.
I have no doubt that back in the Islamic Golden Age, the muslim nations were in many ways more equitable, more advanced technologically, and more peaceful than many Christian nations at that time. But, if those 1000 CE Christians saw how a Christian in the US, or Norway, or Germany is acting and believing, they would denounce them as infidels and heretics.
Because the cultural practices are barely recognizable. And that's the difference - for better or for worse, a lot of christians just kinda ignored most their holy book and a lot of their practices and made their most important religious holiday about a fat old man that gives children material goods. Can you imagine any Islamic religious holiday being taken over like that?
In the end, the proof is in the pudding. How many Islamic nations are there with at least a fair human rights track record? Tunisia maybe? Malaysia?
I don't think it's because Christianity is a more peaceful religion that more peaceful countries have Christian majorities - rather, Christianity cannot muster enough cultural force to overpower alternative philosophies from taking over cultures that Christian, like enlightment-era humanism.
In review, I think that it's not that Islam is particularly more violent or oppressive - I think the creators of the religion were just better at crafting policies that would continue their cultural practices and belief through the generations.
But, inevitably any set of practices from so long ago will find a large gap between themselves and today.
This is an interesting take, but I'm going to "well actually" one thing about Christianity.
Christmas is not the most important holiday. That's Easter. The Resurrection is the central teaching of the religion. Christmas was not nearly as popular before the secularization of it. Easter has also been secularized with the bunnies and eggs but not to the extent of Christmas.
I took a course in world religions one time, and there was a topic about popular supernaturalism. That's where people do things or believe things that aren't in the canon. For example, praying to saints. Catholics do that but they're not supposed to really. Much more problematic is the stuff that happened with American Evangelical Christianity, especially the Prosperity Gospel and the white nationalism stuff, and how it became aligned with the Republican Party which supports the exact opposite of what is taught in the Bible.
I don't know enough about Islam to comment much about it, but as far as I know you are right that it seems to not get diluted in the same way.
+1 re: Iranian liberalism. Granted, the puppet set up by the CIA further moved the country toward (autocratic) liberalism. But then the Shias took over. And then blowback against the US ensued.
Separate point: even Buddhists can stray widely from their path.
I think this is very offensive, shortsighted, and lumps nearly 2 billion people into your religious hierarchy. I'm not afraid of Muslims, I am often concerned about what a variety of countries do - but if I break them down, those countries cover far more religions than Islam.
And to be specifically clear, you cannot say "it's not the people" as if countries aren't made up of people, as if Muslims don't live all over the world, as if they're in the "stone age" but because we kill people with bullets and injections it's "civilized."
It is, after all, just our culture to claim that when we do it, it's fine, but when "they" do it, they're in the "stone age" so maybe it's just how "we" are.
What you expressed went far beyond disliking a faith or being anti-theist.
You clearly do not understand why I feel this way if that is your response.
What you said went beyond anti-theism then, if such a statement makes you feel better.
It's so easy to dehumanize people as you claim to care about them, "we" as a culture have centuries of practice. And I have zero respect for it. So you can do whatever here but I think it's interesting how people that have clearly analyzed all the subsects of a vast faith and understand the nuances will do the Islamic equivalent of lumping the Pope in with the apocalyptic Calvin-descended Christianity of America and yet still never once advocate for something like lumping all men together and holding them all accountable for the exact same crimes despite that being even more ideologically universal.
There are little girls in the US being "married" off to old men today. Expected to dress modestly and not speak to a man who isn't their family member or spouse. There is so much wrong with what you said and are saying and I don't even think it's worth my while to continue I'm just this angry.
So say whatever you want, I don't want you to expect that I end this thread feeling any differently about it.
You claimed to separate the people from the faith but treated the faith as a monolith when it is not, and as I cannot quote you, I can only say that when you universalize the actions of governments and people, of oppressive regimes and the beliefs of the every day person you're inherently going to just plain show bias with things like "stone age."
But you did talk about all of Islam which is not a singular ideology/theology. And again I cannot quote you, but in my opinion, as I expressed, offensively so. Everything you said could have been applied to all nations that function as a patriarchy. I can't think of one that doesn't engage in cruelty and violence as a matter of practice. So why isn't that just as valid?
You said things I found offensive and I am upset about it. I said do not expect me to come out of this feeling differently about what you said.
That is not something you get any control over.
One can claim to love people while dehumanizing them, we do it a lot. I don't make any claims about where your words or beliefs come from. I said they were offensive and expressed my distaste for them on those grounds.
The topic at hand wasn't your feelings on Islam until you shared them. You added a comment about girls in hijabs I can only assume to "explain" why you feel this way, my example was only that this is also not a practice limited to Islam (nor universal to Islam). Modesty practices and gender policing have been used in a lot of cultures and faiths and are still to this day.
By the by the reason most people react more positively to anti-christianity statements is that generally if they're American and have religious trauma, it's from Christians. And we tend to be culturally Christian regardless of our current beliefs, because the country is. I don't like a lot of things about conservative and oppressive Islam, or Judaism, or Christianity, or Hinduism, or any number of smaller or indigenous faiths.
You didn't say this explicitly, but what you're saying here is reminiscent of:
I'm exhausted of the rhetoric about how queer people (or feminists or progressives) shouldn't care about Muslims (whether Palestine or otherwise) because "they" would kill us. So would Christians in Uganda, so have Christians in the US to this day.
I give a fuck because you said what I believe to be horrible shit, and I reject the narrative that I'm not engaging in good faith for that or that it's a flaw to give a fuck about anti-Islamic statements or that you're catching strays because conservatives are the only bigots.
I told you want to expect, that's what you get.
What is bad faith about that?
No, they read like I'm upset you're trying to absolve yourself because you made edits and are using my tone to implement that absolution. I have been absolutely honest with you, and you choosing to interpret that as "in bad faith" because you think it reads in a certain way is silly. You said we should speak plainly. I'm doing that.
Islam is not a country nor does it have a Caliph or any other centralized authority, and you keep addressing it like it's a monolith. (Sharia for Muslims is literally the same as Jewish people practicing Halakha or Catholics fasting during Lent, by the way. There are some countries that enforce violent forms of that law, and it varies in its cultural enforcement, but your Muslim students are also practicing sharia. My queer Muslim friend also practices sharia. "Sharia law" is, first, "law law" and yeah mostly a propaganda term. You can't just say "they practice Sharia law" as if that's evidence of something evil.)
If your issues are with Iran or other countries sure, but "Islam* doesn't own nukes, even though a Muslim country has nukes already. And since there's only one country that has demonstrated such a willingness to use those weapons against civilians it seems naive to pretend there's a hierarchy of who is "ready" for nukes, as if anyone is.
I am not engaging you in the debate you reference, because I was never having a debate about who should have nukes. I am here because you said some really offensive shit. I haven't advocated for which Muslim countries are somehow less "stone age" and thus able to have nukes, only pointed out that denigrating other cultures as lesser and incorrectly lumping 2 billion people into your criticism of a nation state (even as you say you're not, you keep doing it) would be as incorrect as lumping 4 billion people into my criticisms of humanity's propensity for war.
You don't like my tone, you can dip. I'd say the same to you in private or in person; this is not uncivil because it's upset.
I deleted my comments and replies because I do not want Tildes to be this kind of place and I certainly don't want to contribute to this atmosphere.
I have enjoyed many of your comments in the past and have even enjoyed a healthy debate or two with you. I feel that your comments on this thread have mostly been clapbacks. Even this comment to which I'm replying is dripping with aggression. "You don't like my tone, you can dip" is a prime example but only one of many.
I apologize if I was unable to clearly articulate my point, or if I successfully articulated it and it was offensive.
I hope we can move past this and that our future interactions will be different than this one.
I assure you, I'm not dripping with aggression, I'm just using slang rather than saying "If the tone of my comments in response to you is not to your liking, you're not obligated to continue."
If I were clapping back, I'd probably be much more aggressive and deeply sarcastic. I am upset and told you that but I am not calling you names, cursing you out, or being uncivil. I didn't make claims of why you're making these statements or what's in your heart. I do not believe that emotionless rationality is the pinnacle of discussion or debate and I don't make any pretense of that.
I'm genuinely disappointed to see the attitude you expressed on Tildes, and continued to be upset by what I can only see as a lack of actual knowledge about, possibly religion in general but specifically the one you were criticizing, while making broad generalizations instead of just criticizing the specific Islamic country, Islamic (or any) fundamentalism, or Twelver Ja'fari Shia Islam specifically. (And yes I did look that up.)
I try very much to be who I say I am. I try to reevaluate my tone after the fact. In this case I am not sorry for the level of my response as I believe it rose to the appropriate level for the statements made. I don't hold a personal grudge.
@deimos really needs to shut down this whole line of bigotry.
Alright. Deleting my comments.
I personally feel that I fairly expressed my distaste for religion as a whole while stating my view that extremism is a particular problem in the Islamic faith. I note that one or two of my remarks were inflammatory and potentially offensive. I apologize.
I feel that I pointed out the difficulty in separating a fundamentalist version of Islam from the country of Iran, a country which has proudly proclaimed Sharia law since 1979.
Finally, I feel that I pointed out my intense reservations about allowing an unstable theocracy to have nuclear weapons, and shared my opinion that the Islamic faith is not compatible with progressive and liberal democracy, in which I am a firm believer.
That said, I do not want Tildes to be a place for arguing. I do not want all of my future comments to be tainted with the idea that I may secretly be a hateful bigot. And since I am a human being with blind spots, I can only look at the many people who seem upset with me and conclude that there is at least some chance that I am in the wrong. At the very least, I can conclude that I have upset people, and that is the opposite of what I come to Tildes to do.
If you think a comment is malicious or needs to be removed then label it as malice and leave a message explaining why.
Otherwise, these little comments you keep leaving do nothing to improve the situation, they just ratchet up the hostility and contempt.
I have already labeled wolf's posts accordingly.
Cool, that's all you need to do
I've flagged several posts in this thread. I'd rather it not get "nuked" but this part was unnecessary from jump.
The Roman Republic wasn’t much like what we would call a democracy and usually isn’t referred to as one. It’s true that the concept of universal citizenship (for all free inhabitants) came from the Romans, but that was an emperor’s decree centuries after the Republic ended.
This is simplistic. There are many countries with Muslim leaders, and they don’t all behave the same. If you’re going to talk about Iran’s government then you need to go into a lot more detail than that.
I don’t trust anyone’s “common sense” (unexamined prejudices) on this. I don’t know a lot about Iran’s government and I expect most others are the same. I would like to hear more from people who actually know things. (Or good links, if you have them.)
It’s a bit older, but for anyone curious here’s a very basic primer that I found useful.
The knowledge from that alone won’t change much in terms of not knowing a lot about the country (I’m including myself in this), but maybe it’s a decent starting point.
Well, if nothing else, it's good to know where you stand. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go into every detail of how wrong this is. I doubt I would get anywhere if I tried. I don't blame you for it, we are all products of our environment.
If you are interested in expanding your horizons, I suggest you read up on the history of the region. It wasn't always like this.
Geez, that's a tough question. Truly, those are some pretty bad options. But I guess if I had to go with one, and I'm basing my answer off of whether I "care about human life," I'd choose the one that isn't murdering people who are trying to get food. I'd choose the one that isn't systematically shooting children in the head. I'd choose the one that hasn't spent the past two years indiscriminately bombing innocent people who were forced into an open air prison of its making. If choose the one that isn't an apartheid state. I'd choose the one that isn't led by a war criminal. Because unlike today's Israel, I see Muslims as human beings.
History is critically important when talking about any issue today, including nukes. Setting aside the importance of whether or not they actually have nukes, you still need to ask why Iran would try to build nukes in order to make a proper assessment. How do you begin to answer that without any historical context?
This should be familiar to you as a progressive since we do it all the time when we try to understand issues at home. Take the socioeconomic conditions of Black people, for example. How do you make sense of that without slavery, redlining, or Jim Crow? Without historical context, people start to look for answers in the wrong place, like the color of their skin or "the culture." It's how people end up buying into racist 13/50 talking points.
Who is ready for nukes?
I'm frankly shocked that Deimos is letting this comment slide.
The irony is that we already did a regime change in Iran when the CIA deposed the Shah. Iran's hatred for America is traceable back to Operation Ajax in 1953.
Their hatred for us? Blowback.
When people say “there is no choice,” that generally means there is a choice that they don’t want to talk about. If Iran did have nuclear weapons, why wouldn’t we just get used to it, like has happened with every other country that has them? Is it really so much worse than China or Russia having them?
The talk about “regime change” seems like wishful thinking, short of a ground war that nobody wants. So, I’d guess there will be a ceasefire when they run out of military targets to bomb?
And maybe that will set them back a few years.
The risk of nuclear war is non zero.
Each country that gets nukes increases the risk of nuclear war by a multiple of 1x.
China and Russia are very transactional in their decision making.
Transactional countries that benefit from the status quo, are less likely to upset the status quo with nuclear war.
What is your risk multiple of giving Iran nuclear bombs?
Nuclear war isn't something you 'get used to.'
China, Russia, even North Korea are fairly rational actors, albeit cruel ones.
The top comment on HN is:
I think that the fact that Iran couldn't intelligently game out its race for nukes is evidence enough that they cannot be trusted to acquire nukes, because their state is insufficiently rational.
China, Russia, India, North Korea, Pakistan, and Israel understand The Game. But Iran apparently doesn't.
I would like to see a more informed argument for why Iran’s leadership is different and doesn’t understand The Game. Quoting opinions of strangers on the Internet is kind of weak - what do they know?
The argument that because they sought nuclear weapons, they must be irrational doesn’t work for me. It’s extremely obvious why any nation with a powerful enemy would want them. Ukraine would probably not have been invaded, for example.
I had a brief conversation about this a while back with an acquaintance who works for the DoD. Iran isn't directly his area of expertise but he's well informed, and I came away with the impression that Iran is generally seen as a rational actor when it comes to these types of conflicts. For example, their retaliation for the assassination of Qasem Soleimani were quite restrained, all things considered.
Iran plays to their base, and the base that keeps them in power enjoys a bit of the ol' "Death to America" just as much as the American South loves "God Bless America."
That said, Iran is well known for arming and supporting Iran-aligned groups in the Middle East, providing arms and material support... but that's mostly inside their sphere of influence - much like the U.S. does, just they consider the whole globe their sphere.
The U.S. wants people to like the U.S., obviously. Iran is opposed to the U.S. so they support people who don't like the U.S. - Major and minor players.
The U.S. has a logical line - Iran provides missiles to rebels who actively target U.S. warships. You gotta be pretty stupid to fire rockets at the half century war mongers and if you're supporting people that stupid, who's to say you won't give them bigger toys?
Iran also has a logical line - the U.S. is basically the War Monger. They're responsible for fucking up their region and they think they could do a better job if the region was aligned under them, instead of some imperialists a couple thousand kilometers away. The only thing that seems to give the U.S. pause is the big bomb, so you need that to keep them at bay. Russia is an ally of convenience and has proven that if something happens you can't really rely on their 'might'.
That is not the argument @EgoEimi made. Not even close.
The argument is that if they either should have covertly raced to the finish line or drop it altogether. Those are the only rational moves.
Instead they chose to slowly, haltingly crawl toward nukes while having official state policy calling for the destruction of Israel, which has a much more powerful coalition than Iran's. They underestimated Israel and overestimated themselves and their coalition.
If you're in a fist fight with someone, either you quickly whip out a gun and threaten to kill your opponent, thereby ending the fight on your terms — or you don't draw it at all and stick with fists and keep it nonlethal. But it's irrational to slowly draw it, which then escalates the stakes of the fist fight where your opponent now must incapacitate or kill you and end the fight on their terms before you finish drawing it.
It was a severe and also sloppy miscalculation. Our trust that current nuclear countries can play the game is already hair thin. The world cannot allow a player as sloppy as Iran to join the club.
It was relatively rational when they had proxies (Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, etc) that could provide a decent counter to Israel. But three of those four have been significantly diminished or outright eliminated and don’t provide the necessary deterrent.
Because Iran is far more likely to use them. They already funded terrorism via Hamas and Hezbollah among others. They've shown they're willito support killing to advance their cause.
Israel would like a regime change, one that doesn't say "death to Israel" and take actions to make that happen.
There might be consequences to this action but the risk of that is worth it imo, when compared to the risks associated with nuclear weapons.
There is no intelligence to suggest that Iran is any closer to a nuclear weapons than it was in 2018. There was no imminent threat. Nothing has been presented to the public as evidence for why this needed to happen right now.
EDIT: It has been pointed out that it is clear that Iran has more enriched uranium than in 2018. This is true and makes my first statement, as written, false. Nonetheless the central claim that they were not nor were currently planning to build a bomb is still true, based on US intelligence assessments, and that therefore a diplomatic path was still viable.
They have a lot more heavily enriched uranium now than in 2018 so that's categorically false.
Ok, you are correct that they have more enriched uranium than in 2018.
The assessment of the US intelligence community as of 1 week ago is that they were not currently or imminently building a bomb. Happy to be shown evidence otherwise, but that is what US intel was saying. I do not think we should enter foreign wars based on another country’s intel that is uncorroborated.
I think it would be bad for Iran to get a bomb. I do not think we have been presented any evidence showing that was imminent. Iran does not have any enriched uranium of sufficient purity to build a warhead, and all of their enrichment thus far is below weapons-grade.
Building a bomb isn't the hardest part, it's enriching uranium.
I understand that well and do not see how it is relevant, and nonetheless that should not suggest that actually building a bomb is a trivial step either.
Here is how 8 see things. We had a diplomatic solution to prevent enrichment which Trump tore up. After that, after the US assassinated high ranking Iranian officials and Israel began to seriously degrade their proxies, Iran began to enrich to near-weapons grade levels, but not actually weapons grade. We have no intelligence to suggest they have gone further, or have decided to actually build a bomb, let alone do so on a timescale that would necessitate strikes.
Meanwhile, we have entered into a war with them, which, as things stand now, makes them getting a bomb more likely without substantial further involvement.
We do not know yet whether we destroyed their enriched uranium reserves — IAEA has not yet detected increased radiation levels from any of the bombed nuclear sites, indicating they may have moved this fuel to safe locations prior to the strikes.
The damage to nuclear facilities is substantial but repairable, which is certainly what will happen if the regime survives.
Khameini has not been killed and has appointed successors who are as radical as him. Short of eliminating all of them, I must believe that the response from the Iranian government will be to affirmatively start building a bomb now, delayed only by the damage to nuclear facilities.
If top leadership is eliminated, there is no telling who fills that power vacuum, and if recent history of wars in the middle east serves as any indicator, it will not be a power that is friendly to western interests.
Therefore, I think this strike has only made it more likely that either Iran gets a nuclear weapon, or we become more embroiled in this conflict. Perhaps, if they were truly imminently going to have a weapon, this would be an acceptable outcome and therefore the strikes could be justified, but as to my original point, there simply is no intelligence to indicate this was so.
As I said elsewhere in this thread, I believe this is a nightmare for proliferation concerns, which also seems to be the viewpoint of proliferation experts I happen to follow online.
Do you have any experts you'd recommend? My Bluesky has become a place I like for following experts in their fields. (DM is fine if, I don't want to derail)
Don’t know if Arms Control Wonk is on BSky, but his blog is generally considered one of the best.
https://bsky.app/profile/armscontrolwonk.bsky.social
Ty!
DM’d!
Yeah I read the report's two paragraphs about that. The conclusion was that no decision was made to proceed with the bomb. But no one in the intelligence community was casting doubts that Iran had built up the components required to build a bomb and could, within weeks to months, build multiple bombs. So yes, while technically a decision may not have been made for the final step, they had done practically everything up to that step. Is that a distinction worth making?
The Iranians aren't stupid. They knew what the implications to the world was to enrich uranium to 60% (84% at Fordow from what I've read). There is no practical application of that uranium they enriched except to build a bomb. And to do so within fortified bunkers that only one military might be able to reach with any strong chance of success... If they were bluffing, then the problem with bluffing is that people will believe you sometimes.
I personally believe it is a huge distinction and one worth making. It meant that there was still a diplomatic solution that could have been pursued, like the JCPOA, which Iran adhered to while it was in effect.
The thing about war is it is extremely unpredictable. I laid out my reasons above for why I thought this move would greatly inflame an already unstable situation and make the sprint towards nukes much more likely. I cannot imagine Iran would negotiate with the US given that the US reneged the last time that happened, leading ultimately to this.
It seems like we both agree Iran should not have a bomb. My stance is that this strike alone does not make accomplish that. I think it is important to emphasize that this strike did not completely eliminate Iran’s nuclear prospects and instead only delayed them. What’s the plan now? Regime change?
Delaying them a few years is an outcome I'm okay with. If we get here again, then do it again. Nuclear weapons cannot be allowed to proliferate if we can stop it, in my opinion.
JCPOA was kicking the can down the road. The problem with it was that we were going to let Iran come back to enriching uranium after it expired in 15 years but with a stronger economy. From their POV, they could adhere to it, build the other infrastructure and economy needed for it, and then just go back to enriching uranium later. JCPOA kind of sucked but I can understand why Obama felt like it was the best option at the time.
The distinction is not worth making. Up until they use the bomb, diplomacy is technically always an option. We would be here arguing that if they had built the bomb.
Agree to disagree. Time will tell. We both believe nuclear weapons should not proliferate, I just think this has made it more likely, absent further involvement, which I also do not want. If they are committed to it, the only way to prevent them from having a nuke is complete regime change and government building in its wake, or to convince them it is not necessary. I do not believe the latter is possible any longer if it ever was.
Upvoted because I do agree that this could have the exact opposite effect. I'm hopeful, but not going to bury my head in the sand either.
https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/analysis-of-iaea-iran-verification-and-monitoring-report-may-2025/
Absolutely no one serious would say Iran isn’t closer to getting a bomb.
I corrected myself regarding having more enriched uranium. I have yet to see any indication they were actually building a bomb, let alone had decided to, and a diplomatic path was still viable.
I interpret it as a window of opportunity with Iran’s proxies around Israel now unable to enact retribution, so Israel are acting opportunistically while they can for something they have wanted to do for years.
I didn't mean to suggest they do/did. I was going off the "if" in the comment I replied to.
Regardless I don't think it's a good idea to wait until they're an imminent threat. It's not like Iran is a bastion of everything good in the world, they're almost the exact opposite.
I don’t see the logical connection between “they fund terrorism and proxy wars” and “they are willing to use nuclear weapons.”
Right. The United States, for example, also has funded various terrorist organizations and is engaged in numerous proxy wars at any given time. They funded the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, explicitly trained, armed, and directed Cuban terrorists, and provided support to Syrian rebel groups like Nour al-Din al-Zenki, who have such heinous accolades as beheading children.
The US has also used nuclear weapons, but you know, that was then. :)
I think this largely depends on track record. There was a time when people in the US were building bomb shelters, but after 75 years, we’ve grown pretty comfortable with Russia having the bomb. When they’re new, people worry more.
You know... That... Is a very good (upsetting) point. And yet, elsewhere in this thread, folks are claiming that the US and Russia can be trusted in nukes because they are "rational actors."
But yes, I agree about the track record thing. And I also think that's an appropriate sentiment — it makes sense to be more anxious about an entity with new/untested power. Ideally we (collectively, not accusing you of this) would acknowledge that anxiety and its source, rather than trying to justify it with what basically amounts to Islamaphobia.
Here's the Wikipedia article on this group for anyone interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nour_al-Din_al-Zenki_Movement
Whether the person they beheaded was actually a child or not seems contested, but I also haven't watched the beheading video myself, so I'm just going off what the sources say.
Of course, where there's one beheading on video, there are probably others that weren't. Islamist groups love beheading people.
Because that's not the whole starting point. Iran wants (wanted?)to destroy Israel (pre this direct conflict). They didn't want to negotiate with them, "death to Israel and the USA" wasn't just a thing the people there want(ed?) it's what their government was attempting to make happen.
The more countries that have nuclear weapons the higher the chance they are used, especially when extremists have them. MAD didn't apply when one side IS willing to die for it's cause.
There is no reason to allow any risk when it comes to this, if you allow/accept the risk and you're wrong the consequences is a nuclear attack that could kill millions, destroy the global economy (varying degree depending on where the attack would happen), and a potential nuclear response that could kill even more people in Iran.
Funnily enough, that doesn't seem to be true in the slightest.
Only one country has used nuclear weapons and at the time it was the only country with them.
Now nine have nuclear weapons and yet still only one country has ever used them.
The nuclear taboo is an accident of history, and not an inherent characteristic of nuclear weapons use (or non-use).
When taken with no context, sure it's true. If you're willing to gamble the potential loss of life with Iran a known religious extremist country then yes it's worth it. I am not.
What context is missing exactly?
And religious extremist countries already have nuclear weapons. Have you an issue with those or are they ones you allow to gamble with the loss of life?
Iran has a history of attacking us bases...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations
And the people chant death to Israel and the USA.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hqu0L0PGOIw
Yes I have an issue with them but 1. No other country is as religiously extreme as Iran, and 2. Disarming any country is next to impossible in the current political climate.
...and Iran has absolutely no reason for doing so, none at all, nothing that could have possibly made them think to do such a thing, nada, zip, zilch, zero...
If you believe that's true then you have not been paying attention.
I'm not talking about the past, can't change it and we have to deal with the world as is, not what it could or should be.
Israel isn't as extremist as iran. Do you think Iran is the morally superior country compared to Israel?
Do you think Israel is morally superior to Iran?
Yes. That's not a "Israel is good" take, it's that's just how bad Iran is.
Will you answer the question?
I think they're on the same moral quicksand, having committed, continue to commit, fund, support, advocate, and hide behind their own flavors of religious extremism and terrorism. One just has a better PR department and already has nukes and an extremist religious doctrine to use them and is afraid someone else might look at it and agree that it's a good idea if they also want to ensure self preservation.
Not accepting risk isn't an option. There is always risk. (For example, these airstrikes might not accomplish what they set out to do.)
Yes, and you're willing to accept far more risk, why I'm not sure.
No, I didn’t say that, and I haven’t taken any side on Iran.
In my opinion when you said this, you did say you're willing to accept more risk and that you're "on the side of Iran" in the sense that you're okay with them having nuclear weapons.
What I've generally been trying to say is that yes, it's much worse and you have disagreed, thus taking the side of Iran, because they want nuclear weapons.
If you were only asking questions I wouldn't think you're taking a side but when you're directly making comparisons and counter arguments I think it's only fair to assume your position.
They are actual questions! What I meant to say is that I’m not convinced yet, not taking the opposite side. Maybe I should have said that more explicitly.
That's a very strong claim...
That is backed up by the numerous terrorist attacks Iran has funded.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism
I mean, we already know it is don't we? https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/analysis-of-iaea-iran-verification-and-monitoring-report-may-2025/
Unlike Iraq, Iran hasn't been coy about anything. They're enriching uranium, and quite a bit beyond anything that would be needed for nuclear power. They've also been extremely vocal about destroying Israel and the US.
Having another north korea that can't be attacked, but also routinely gives funds and weaponry to neighboring militant groups for proxy wars, is just going to be hell for the entire region.
Double so when yeah, you're dealing with extreme religious fundamentalists who don't much care about human rights or possibly consequences.
Iran was supporting proxy wars already. How would it be different?
Because they’d have nukes to distribute
I’ll confess that the idea that a nuclear power would give nuclear weapons away hadn’t occurred to me.
There was significant fear that Ukraine would sell or lose control of nuclear weapons to rogue states or non-state actors due to political instability.
Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances from Russia, the US, and the UK.
And how'd that work out for them exactly?
It’s a larger concern with Iran to my understanding because of their history of proxy wars mixed with their very outspoken goals of total destruction.
Society is in a weird bubble of MAD right now in that almost every nation with nukes doesn’t want anyone else using it and most don’t see any benefit to sharing the tech.
Since Iran is already fine with arming local militias so they catch the blowback there’s some serious concern they’ll give a small nuke to a terrorist group.
Obviously that being said it’s not like other nuclear countries haven't supplied enemies of their enemies with weaponry to cause shit, but it does seem to be a larger concern with Iran due to their global position.
If we KNEW they were just going to go the route of NK and only be a horrible untouchable regime that frequently demanded resources of allies we’d probably care less, buuuuut if I renege right part of the reason NK has nukes (or Iran’s as far as they are, can’t remember) is because of a country (Pakistan?) sharing the tech.
Let's leave even nukes aside for a moment.
Does anyone remember 2001 and the talk of dirty bombs? These are low tech ways to do a lot of harm so long as you have access to radioactive material.
It's interesting to note that Iran has had the ability for years now. They could (and maybe have—though this is unfalsifiable) armed their proxies with such devices.
Even without fission bombs, the terror of irreparable harm caused by radioactive material remains.
From the linked Wikipedia article:
My understanding is that dirty bombs aren't really significantly worse than regular bombs, assuming appropriate action is taken in the aftermath.
Effectiveness of the bomb itself is often secondary to the psychological effects of its use. This is well known to be the reason for the use of nukes by the US in Japan.
There is a world of difference between a dirty bomb attack and a nuclear one
The difference is you can directly retaliate...
Is it really possible to stop their nuclear research with just bombs and missiles though? I imagine for every secret underground base that's known about, there's another that isn't. Would it take a ground invasion, do a thorough search of every conceivable site? And unless they're able to 'finish the job',, will it be worth the escalated tensions?
Stop no, but turn it back potentially more than a decade yes. The equipment needed, the resources and the scientists needed don't come easily. The scientists seem to be an increasing problem because young nuclear physicists often leave Iran immediately after finishing their studies because as soon as they touch any project in Iran, their chances of being employable anywhere in the west go down drastically, and the old scientists are gradually dying out both of natural causes and recently strikes.
Considering how full of spies Iran is, as demonstrated by recent Mossad strikes preceding the first aerial strikes, that is not necessarily the case.
In that case, aren't we in a much worse place a decade from now? Diplomatic solutions are much less likely and self-preservation is a much bigger motivator.
Yeah somebody else mentioned JCPOA being "kicking the can down the road". This seems like the same situation to me, but with many more lives lost in the meantime.
That depends on what the regime is in a decade. In Iran specifically there is a possibility of change even without outside interference. Also I don't think diplomatic solutions worked particularly well until now and if the current realistic choice is either just let Iran do it or get another decade to do whatever, then the latter is a better choice in a situation where no good choice exists.
why?
One thing that is frustrating about this is to compare it with the lead up to the 2003 Iraq War. There you had the buffet of yellow cake and mushroom clouds. There you had an authorization of force, overwhelmingly approved by the legislature. And even then people complained about how things moved too fast. By contrast here, Trump has absolute power and the public is left guessing what will happen (just yesterday the betting markets had Trump bombing Iran in June at ~35%).
Conservatives try to defend this by saying it lets him be flexible and keep his enemies guessing. But I’d rather have a democracy. Maybe this is just a pet peeve of mine, I feel the same about the trade war.
People have also talked at length about centralization of presidential power in the nuclear weapons age. In that sense, at least Trump could argue that this extraordinary use of presidential power at least fell under that framework. I’ll concede at least that. But then you’re basically arguing that there was an urgent nuclear threat out of nowhere. It’s a harrowing reminder of how the world could end tomorrow, and we might not even know why.
I believe there have been US airstrikes without Congressional approval against Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria… any others?
I don’t remember the details, so perhaps it’s different this time, but not obviously so.
This isn't quite true. Congress signed an Authorized Use of Military Force against, basically, "terrorism" in the wake of 9/11. The AUMF has been interpreted quite broadly, but for some of those countries (especially Afghanistan) there was indeed effectively explicit approval.
Indeed, and especially for this reason I wanted to add the third paragraph saying that at least Trump can argue his situation was more pressing. But I fear the implication then is that these strikes are only the beginning.
It would be optimal for the US to extend some action of goodwill to the Iranian regime as soon as possible. The Iranians will keep trying to pursue a nuclear weapon for as long as they feel it's necessary to protect against existential threats, and giving them more reasons to feel that diplomacy is not viable is unwise. Regime change is risky and perhaps unlikely, since a sizable portion of even liberal leaning Iranians may align themselves with the regime in the event of an externally driven regime change operation. A democratic Iran may be a bit less hostile to the West, but may still be inclined to pursue a nuke, which would trigger nuclear proliferation in the region.
Some side notes/thoughts on Iran:
The slogans "death to America" and "death to Israel" come from common phrases that are generally understood to mean "down with" and might be used against something as benign as traffic. It's still a serious concern that it's so commonly used, but I would discount the seriousness by 30% or so.
Shiaism is interesting in that it has an anti-establishment flair à la Protestantism since they dissented against the majority, but is comparatively centralized à la Catholicism. Shias I would say are also relatively emotional, dramatic, mystical, and liberal compared to Sunnis who tend to be more even keel and practical.
The Iranians are a very sincere, intelligent, and proud people. That is to say, they don't respond well to power games and abandoning diplomacy and conversations of objective justice is not a viable long-term strategy, since they'll continue to find ways to double down and undermine the US. Sincerely addressing injustices in Israel-Palestine and apologizing for the whole Shah fiasco, for instance, would probably go a long way to de-radicalizing them.
I don't see how that works. They were convinced they needed nukes before and they've been proven right.
The proliferation implications are loud and clear here for any country out there that was thinking of making nuclear weapons: do not negotiate, and build a weapon as quickly as possible.
If the Iranian regime survives this, which I personally believe they will absent actual boots-on-the-ground intervention, that is exactly what they will do.
I see it differently: if a country faces ruin if it attempts to build nuclear weapons.
This did not happen for Israel.
On the one hand: they did (the JCPoA), then Trump unilaterally withdrew it, and then Biden stayed the course (I don't entirely blame him; that bridge was burned and he couldn't guarantee that Trump wouldn't be re-elected and re-burn the bridge). Iran is quite obviously the aggrieved party there, these nukes are the US's fault (and more specifically, Trump's fault).
On the other hand: Iran has been pushing one-sided proxy wars against Israel and just assuming Israel wouldn't/couldn't retaliate directly, and so this is basically just Iran being mauled by the caged dog they'd been poking for years. Even without nukes, Israel's attack is justified; Iran needs to knock it off on the terrorism.
Honestly, give them all nukes. This all sounds nuts but if there is one thing I've learned from all my history is that everyone having nukes makes military action like this much riskier, and fosters diplomacy where there would otherwise just be drone strikes and arbitrary bombings.
Even among "stable" countries, the risk of nuclear war is not insignificant and we've come dangerously close on several occasions. The more nuclear armed countries there are, the dramatically more likely it is that we'll see nuclear conflict.
The pre-coffee nihlist in me is talking.
At this point, I'm tired of all the "will-they, won't they" border power dynamics drama. It should be shed just as other bigoted behavior.
Let the nuclear wars happen. Maybe then the few survivors will then have a chance of surviving the inevitable climate catastrophe as all of our carbon production has been reduced to rubble. In the words of John Carpenter, in GUNSHIP's Tech Noir 2:
Ignoring the abhorrent loss of innocent life, even regional scale nuclear war would produce a nuclear winter resulting in famine that could starve billions worldwide.
https://www.science.org/content/article/nuclear-war-would-cause-yearslong-global-famine
Im sorry, but estimates for nuclear winter were made under the most pessimistic assumptions, and assuming targets that burn much more easily than the architecture found in the middle east:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_debate
I mean, nihlist me from 14 hours ago would say:
"Yea, that's kinda the point."
You don't want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons: sure, valid. There was a diplomatic, non-military strategy for that, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. By all accounts it was working. In that light a war with Iran is and has since then been unjustified and unjustifiable, but this same US President walked away from that agreement in 2018, entirely to make the justification for this (currently illegal might I add!) war in 2025. It's just evil.
You had a diplomatic solution, there was no need to resort to the hell that is war, but these warmongers in the US government apparently just had gone too long without having a bombing campaign to watch and now we're probably all going to get to watch you throw thousands of soldiers into the meat grinder to make Iranian lives hell for a few years. Evil and heartbreaking.
Maybe the Obama administration’s plan would have worked, but we will never know for sure.
The result of Trump’s many illegal actions is that there are very good reasons for not trusting the US government.
10 MOPs dropped on Fordo, 2 on Natanz (per CNN/Fox) - they hit all of the entrances, unclear if the actual bunker under Fordo was collapsed or not. Anyone still alive in there is going to have a lot of digging to do. Natanz, Esfahan, and a few other strategic sites (air defense mostly) were also hit with a barrage of Tomahawk missiles, unclear what's left (it won't be much). All US forces exited the combat arena, lot of talk that Israel's special forces were on the ground at Fordo to faciliate the strike and assess what's left. Iran says they moved anything critical out of these sites a while ago, radiation signatures from the blast sites suggest otherwise. Khamenei says America is going to pay dearly, historic movements of rocket launchers detected in Iran. We have about 40k troops over there at a couple dozen bases within range of Iran's missiles, all of them on high alert if they know what's good for them. Think that brings us up to speed. Looking at that map of bases makes you wonder who the aggressor is, doesn't it? :P
I'm worried about five things. The Nimitz, sleeper cells (not just in the US), false flags pretending to be sleeper cells (not just in the US), Pakistan's nukes getting some action on US/NATO air bases (and then India hitting them), and the radiological fallout from all of that mostly enriched uranium flowing around in a nice big yellow cloud of doom. Thanks, Trump. I hope you know what the hell you are playing chicken with here. At least you didn't use nukes on the nuke sites so that's something I suppose. :/
Best live coverage imo is on NYPrepper's live stream, he'll be on soonish to recap the news. Be warned, the chat there is as full of ex-military, hardcore preppers, and christians as it is excellent and timely news. They called this on Monday right down to the hour. Do be on your best behavior if you chat, their standards are just as high as ours. Less black tie, more Sunday best if you take my meaning. If you panic easily skip this channel, on the other hand if like me you enjoy premium fear porn with your news then welcome home. All caps in chat = mods = news.
If you like your live war news like monday night football, The Enforcer has you covered. If you just fancy a quiet scrolling update focused on facts after the fact only, Duramax is for you.
Almost forgot that I have a playlist for this. Time to dust it off!
Not much of a concern, as long as no chain reaction happened during the strike. Enriched uranium is barely more radioactive than depleted, which is to say it's half life is in the hundreds of millions of years. It's basically a stable element.
U-235 only becomes interesting once you bombard it with neutrons, but that won't happen during enrichment or in a fallout cloud. A chain reaction because you hit centrifuges with a MOP seems incredibly unlikely too - those contain UF6, a gas. Hard to shape a critical mass of that.
From the current reporting it seems there was bupkis in the sites during the strikes, just like Iran claimed. IAEA stated there's no contamination, so that begs the question... where exactly did all of Iran's uranium cache disappear to, and does Mossad know that new location?
Given Mossad’s penetration of the Iranian intelligence services, I wouldn’t be surprised if they know the exact location, down to the floor plan of where it is being stored.
Mind quoting the exact verbiage and/or linking a source?
What I've read is that no radiation was released, which is a different thing. A release of uranium wouldn't result in a lot of radiation.
The MOP wiki page was updated quickly! It already mentions the dubious honour of being first used in Iran in 2025.
Why do you think Pakistan will get involved?
Because they openly stated that if anyone attacks Iran they would get involved. They also stated that if anyone nukes Iran they'll nuke whoever did it. They have 170 nuclear weapons which is more than enough to start trouble.
Countries say a lot of things. Pakistan and the US are historically allies, Pakistan receives substantial aid from the US, and considering tensions with India, the US is an ally or at least positive-neutral superpower that Pakistan cannot afford to have against them. Pressure from the US was critical to calming the recent Indian-Pakistani conflict, and American intervention was seen positively in Pakistan (and negatively in India).
The number 1 concern the Pakistani government has at any given time is: India. The number 2 concern is: India. The number 3 concern is: India.
There is no way Pakistan is going to lift a finger for Iran when it would risk leaving themselves exposed to their greatest geopolitical rival.
Where have they stated this? I have genuinely not heard this before and when searching for this, I only see that they haven't done so.
Source: NDTV
So it appears that the source is a potentially doctored video? Pakistan supposedly denies this claim:
Source: SCMP
I have found zero credible source that this is real.
If you dig further you'll find out the original video in farsi is authentic, but it's an IRGC general making the statement and not a Pakistani official. It's Iran trying to drag Pakistan into the mess on their side. Some days afterwards Pakistan denied ever saying this to the IRGC and stated they would not do this... as if I'd believe either one of them about the color of the sky at this point. I have no problem believing Pakistan told them this behind closed doors, and I have no problem believing that Pakistan chickened out when called on it in public.
Geopolitical alliances change when the chips hit the table, and will never know anything of loyalty or ethics. Shake things up enough and all players shift. That's what worries me.
Given that Pakistan denied it, you should at least put a big, massive asterisk before claiming that Pakistan would get involved.
Edit: the reason I'm suspicious, besides the Pakistan denial, is that Pakistan and Iran aren't close powers whatsoever. They even take potshots at each other sometimes. On top of that, the point of a nuclear umbrella is that the enemy is afraid to strike. Why would the US or Israel be deterred if Pakistan secretly backs up Iran with a nuke? This goes against the entire theory of nuclear deterrence. So what's more likely? Pakistan is pioneering new nuclear deterrence theory OR an Iranian general lied out of desperation?
The Law of Going to War With Iran
This seems to boil down to a shrug of the shoulders. Yeah, it’s arguably illegal, but what can you do?
Even the War Powers Act only requires Congressional approval 90 days after ground troops are sent in.
To everyone that keeps insisting that the US intelligence community stated that Iran is not close to attaining a nuclear weapon, why don't you read the paragraph of what they actually put out:
Source (PDF)
It does not state that they are far from being able to make a bomb. It only states that they have not decided to make the bomb. I haven't decided what I'm making for dinner yet, but I'll be done within an hour once I've decided because I've already bought all the ingredients I need for it. And Iran did have the ingredients for it.
One thing that really pisses me off is that the ONE person in the US leadership I used to trust was Tulsi Gabbard. Ive followed her career ever since I moved to Hawaii for a short stint 10 years ago, where she was a House Representative. Then she ran for presidential nominee and didnt gain much traction but she ran an honest campaign much of it critical of American 'endless wars'. I always got the impression that she had a great deal of integrity - and being an active Lieutenant Colonel Reservist who also served in Iraq for 12 months, I knew that when she said she was against more wars it was because she knew exactly how bad things could get.
She clearly stated not that long ago that Iran was NOT close to building nuclear weapons, which obviously and publicly ticked off the Orange Turd. Then just this week she recanted that statement and said that Iran was "weeks away" from having a nuke. Well, Tulsi, how hard did they twist your arm to make you lie like that? The first comment was not made under duress, the second one most definitely was and now you work for the biggest bully on the planet who just bombed Iran, so which statement do you think we know was truthful?
Im really disappointed in her and I have no words for the level of disgust and derision I have for the shithead, draft dodging, meglomaniac who is using a war to distract from his multitude of failures. What an idiot. The US is in deep, deep trouble.
Tulsi Gabbard's political history really makes her seem like Jacques Doriot. Maybe her beliefs were real, but it's a hell of a shift to go from Democratic Senator to MAGA toadie.
Which is the part I don't get. She was strongly opposed to war and warned everyone that warmongers in the Capitol had pushed the Doomsday clock forward so far the US was on the brink of nuclear war. And here she is carrying Trump's water. Like what the heck happened??
Well she was also famous for carrying water for Syria's Assad, so who knows.
Their beliefs seldom matter more than their success
How targeting Iran's nuclear facilities could impact the environment
With as highlight:
Still waking up(with this...) so not quite in the mood to research as physicist yet... but it does sound reasonable, and I'll take any 'relief' from bad news I can get at this point.
It's still illegal, immoral, stupid, disgusting and so so much more - and I do fear an invasion with all consequences that comes with it. But for now it seems like that, thank god, there won't be any immediate long-term radioactive release in the environment. Well unless they really well-hid plutonium production but I've not seen a single indication of that, or that these facilities have that.
Officials Concede They Don’t Know the Fate of Iran’s Uranium Stockpile - NY Times
https://archive.is/Bvtzk
...
Bombs were dropped, not bombs was dropped. Glad y'all gave him the nuclear codes...
Not 'you all' y'all but y'all as in Americans in general.
Hope my boys in the INIS are gonna be alright. Al-Sadr's men aren't going to be quiet tonight.
"Was" is appropriate here because it's applying to "payload", not "bombs". A payload was dropped.