The Situation With Iran and the Strait of Hormuz

[OPSSG]

Iran has been selective in presenting a conundrum to UK and Korea. The seizure of the MT Hankuk Chemi and its 20-member crew near the strategic Strait of Hormuz has been seen as an attempt by Tehran to assert its demands, just two weeks before President-elect Joe Biden takes office. Iran wants Biden to lift sanctions imposed by outgoing President Donald Trump. Tehran’s critics have long accused it of capturing ships and foreigners as a method of gaining leverage in negotiations.

... it's the route where many of the Oil Trades coming from. On the other hand, many Asians tend to thread carefully in order not to be suck in on Middle East conundrum.

Still if more Asian tankers being obtain by Iranian authority, I do see just in Somalian waters there will be more Asian Naval fleet come to escort their civilian ships in the Gulf.

If Indonesia is not willing to be proactive (after crewmen of Indonesian nationality on MT Hankuk Chemi have been captured by an act of Iranian piracy), it’s only a matter of time before the Iranians act in a way that is more detrimental to Indonesian crews and your country’s merchant ships.

In Mar 2013, Indonesian corvette KRI Diponegoro conducted your country’s 1st counter piracy training with CTF-151, with HMS Northumberland — that initiative should be continued. The Iranians will get the correct message if affected ASEAN nations start to send naval ships to patrol the region (after 20 Jan 2021).

I understand that the international crew of the MT Hankuk Chemi, from Indonesia, Myanmar, South Korea, and Vietnam, are “safe and healthy,” the Yonhap news agency reported. The ship and crew are being held in the Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas.

The ship’s Busan-based operator, Taikun Shipping Co Ltd, told Reuters there had been nothing to indicate before the vessel was seized that Iranian authorities were probing possible violations of environmental rules. “If it really was marine pollution, as they say, the coastguard was supposed to approach the ship first,” Taikun’s management director, Lee Chun-hee, said by telephone. “But, instead, armed soldiers approached the crew and said they needed to be investigated.”

 

[Ananda]

Indonesia is not willing to be proactive (after crewmen of Indonesian nationality on MT Hankuk Chemi have been captured by an act of Iranian piracy), it’s only a matter of time before the Iranians act in a way that is more detrimental to Indonesian crews and your country’s merchant ships.

True, but considering how Indonesian administration react, they're never good in Proactive action. They always doing reactive action after watching every one else doing. Just like current COVID Action, their action always reactive after something happens. That's why Jokowi's replace health Minister due to be late and not reactive to secure more Vaccines supply. This's as example on how most Indonesian bureaucracy still work.

I still see many in Asian Administration behave on reactive ways. Perhaps Singapore and Japan are more proactive on securing trade lines. Considering on Somalian Pirates situation, Indonesia only send warships after one of Indonesian merchant ship got hijacked and being taken hostage. I'm afraid they will also react reactively only after if any Indonesian Tankers got taking offer in the Gulf.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Under normal circumstances almost not detectable, but a Ohio-Class submarine on periscope-depth is also visible for helicopters without advanced sensors.

U.S. Navy Ohio Class Submarine Filmed By Iranian Navy While Submerged - Naval News

It seems probable that a US Navy submarine, the USS Georgia (SSGN 729), has been detected by Iranian forces in the vicinity of the Strait of Hormuz. The circumstances are unclear.

www.navalnews.com

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Report: IDF drawing up plans to strike Iran’s nuclear program | The Times of Israel

www.timesofisrael.com

So yeah, this popped up. Although I hold ToI (Times of Israel) to the highest standard for journalism because they convey things very clearly whilst managing to delete political biases, this one's quite ambiguous.

For starters, you don't have to be an intelligence community member to know that any plan to strike at Iran's nuclear program, or otherwise subvert it, are classified. Not only their details - but the general purpose of these plans.
Sometimes people accidentally say locations, frequencies, and such, close to bluetooth devices or smartphones, you know the usual slip of the tongue, or the old excuse "well they probably know this little detail already". But the purpose of the project - never. Especially not to media.

The only times it IS said, is if the project was declassified after being scrapped or completed long ago, or if it doesn't exist and needs to be politicized.
However, when the latter is true, you try to create a strong media buzz around it. That clearly failed.

Normally I'd say they're just trying to pressure Biden to stop trying to rejoin the JCPOA under the current conditions.
To better understand this, Israel's official position has consistently been - scrap the JCPOA, or modify it to include medium range missile ban, and terror activity ban.

I'm not sure if it's really intended for Biden, or more for Iran.

 

[2007yellow430]

Report: IDF drawing up plans to strike Iran’s nuclear program | The Times of Israel

www.timesofisrael.com

So yeah, this popped up. Although I hold ToI (Times of Israel) to the highest standard for journalism because they convey things very clearly whilst managing to delete political biases, this one's quite ambiguous.

For starters, you don't have to be an intelligence community member to know that any plan to strike at Iran's nuclear program, or otherwise subvert it, are classified. Not only their details - but the general purpose of these plans.
Sometimes people accidentally say locations, frequencies, and such, close to bluetooth devices or smartphones, you know the usual slip of the tongue, or the old excuse "well they probably know this little detail already". But the purpose of the project - never. Especially not to media.

The only times it IS said, is if the project was declassified after being scrapped or completed long ago, or if it doesn't exist and needs to be politicized.
However, when the latter is true, you try to create a strong media buzz around it. That clearly failed.

Normally I'd say they're just trying to pressure Biden to stop trying to rejoin the JCPOA under the current conditions.
To better understand this, Israel's official position has consistently been - scrap the JCPOA, or modify it to include medium range missile ban, and terror activity ban.

I'm not sure if it's really intended for Biden, or more for Iran.

I would think that if Israel did that after we rejoined the JCPOA that it would grossly disrupt the USA Israel partnership. I’m sure Biden has told them that or will after 1/20.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I would think that if Israel did that after we rejoined the JCPOA that it would grossly disrupt the USA Israel partnership. I’m sure Biden has told them that or will after 1/20.

Hurt? Yes. Disrupt? Not so much.
Throughout the fairly long history of the two, Israel and the US had conducted foreign policy in ways that were contrary to the interests of one another, yet there was a mutual understanding and it never escalated beyond a frown.

They understand pretty well in the Pentagon that the JCPOA is only a good deal for the west because they're not threatened by Iran, but for Israel and other regional allies (gulf states) there are more pressing threats like Iran's expansionism in the MENA region and its targeting of economical assets of its neighbors. Therefore to Israel the JCPOA does more harm than good. That's why I believe there won't be a significant political fallout from any overt attack on Iran's nuclear facilities or any form of torpedoing of the JCPOA.

 

[ngatimozart]

You have to realise that because Israel has nuclear weapons that others within the region will want the same to maintain parity. I would think that it is somewhat arrogant to presume that you will always remain the only nation in the region with its own nuclear weapons program. I would argue that if JCPOA takes Iranian nuclear weapons out of the battle order, then that's one problem solved. Then the IRBM problem can begin to be addressed.

Iran isn't the only country with nuclear weapons ambitions that you have to concern yourself with. It has long been rumoured that the Saudis funded the Pakistani nuclear weapons program with the Saudi price being a number of warheads for their use if or when required. For plausible deniability the warheads are kept in secure facilities in Pakistan. If such a case is true then you do indeed have a problem because you cannot guarantee that at some stage in the future the Saudis and Israel will not be mortal enemies.

I do agree that Iran is a serious threat, however I also think Israel and the west should be very careful about being drawn into the Saudi - Iranian hate fest. My own view is that let them fight it out and deplete themselves rather than end up being the mince meat in the middle.

 

[John Fedup]

Mince meat in the middle indeed, Saddam’s Iraq was the counter to Iran until he turned on Kuwait. Saudi Arabia has proven it is no counter to Iran, their Yemen adventure has proven that. Iran is a $hitstorm waiting to happen.

 

[OPSSG]

Perhaps Singapore and Japan are more proactive on securing trade lines. Considering on Somalian Pirates situation, Indonesia only send warships after one of Indonesian merchant ship got hijacked and being taken hostage. I'm afraid they will also react reactively only after if any Indonesian Tankers got taking offer in the Gulf.

1. Not sure about Singapore being seen as proactive but I would characterise the Japanese as acting in a strategic manner, to move away from the need for knee-jerk reactions — on the Qn of the use of force or not by the JMSDF to secure their extended SLOCs and energy supplies for Japan.

2. Japan behaves in a ‘neutral’ manner (with a slight tilt to one side) and hopes to be seen as a honest broker. But they have a military vote due to their deployment of a ship and aircraft to gather intelligence. According to the Nikkei daily, from Dec 2019 Japan has been deploying one combat ship with 250 sailors, with its organic helicopter to the Middle East. The JMSDF destroyer will coordinate with 1 of the 2 JMSDF maritime patrol aircraft which are currently taking part in anti-piracy operations along Somalia’s Gulf of Aden coast. In theory, this intelligence mission can be converted to a combat mission, if the need arise.

3. In Jan 2020, Japan and the United Arab Emirates signed the UAE-Japan Strategic Energy Cooperation Agreement that extended an agreement that allowed Japan to store 8 million barrels of UAE crude oil to give the UAE easier access to East Asian markets, while also augmenting Japan’s strategic oil supply in the event that energy supply routes were disrupted. Japan also has a similar arrangement with Saudi Arabia and has entered into an agreement to hold a portion of Australia’s strategic oil reserve.

4. This means if the 1987-88 Tanker War repeats itself with Iran, the NE Asian energy market is less affected. Having an agreement for more oil storage in Japan means a buffer stock that reduces price spikes and a trading advantage for Japanese trading houses and ADNOC. This means that any future attack by Iran on UAE or Saudi Arabia will affect Japan less.

5. IMO, the biggest threat to energy is not Iranian missiles, rather, it is Iranian naval mines. In that respect, the JMSDF has the world’s most capable mine sweeping fleet and the Japanese have a vote in any war. The Japanese can spank any Middle East navy at any time, if they wanted to. But they will not need to do so, and more importantly, they want to be seen as a neutral.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

You have to realise that because Israel has nuclear weapons that others within the region will want the same to maintain parity.

Many other countries already had or have nuclear programs in the region. You mentioned the Saudi-Pakistani bond, and there were also Syria and Iraq (2007 and 1981 strikes respectively, plus chemical weapons remained later), and there are at least sprouts of an Egyptian interest (albeit they're fairly transparently asking for civilian reactors which will only provide them some of the know-how, but not hardware for the job).
But there has been no indication so far that they're compelled by some Israeli arsenal - to the contrary, they were never really deterred and usually a much bigger and more conventional reason was present.

For example? Big dictatorships that want to suppress their people even if it comes at the cost of a civil war, but also want to prevent foreign powers from abusing the situation to intervene. Syria and Iraq eventually turned into international playgrounds (Syria to a much greater extent than Iraq).

Iran's own structure and regional interests are also aligned with some deterrent weapon, to prevent enemies from reacting proportionately to its actions.
Despite Vanunu blowing the whistle, Israel's nuclear ambiguity has remained surprisingly effective. Syria, for example, reacted in full force against Israel's incursion into Lebanon in 1982.
If Syria was deterred by a nuclear Israel, rather than a conventionally armed Israel, it would go the diplomatic route to cut losses - let Israel eliminate the PLO, then have it withdraw as planned with some assurances (i.e dissuade it from remaining in Lebanon later) to later resume its own occupation of Lebanon.
The entire 1973 war occurred despite a nuclear device being at least ready for testing by the six day war (IIRC), albeit in all fairness they may not have known about it.

Countries that use nukes as a deterrent are far more trigger happy, at least in their rhetoric, if we judge by the cold war's numerous events.

As said, Iran stands to gain a lot in the region by having nukes even if we totally discount Israel.

I would think that it is somewhat arrogant to presume that you will always remain the only nation in the region with its own nuclear weapons program.

Arrogance or not, this is not a capability we want them to have, and because we (not only Israel but the west) have the power to stop it, we should.
It is arrogant to think the west should have technological and military superiority over its eastern enemies (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea etc), but we strive to maintain it because it's in our interest and I fully support that.

I would argue that if JCPOA takes Iranian nuclear weapons out of the battle order, then that's one problem solved. Then the IRBM problem can begin to be addressed.

For a select few countries, yes, if they meet the following criteria:
1)They have no clear interests whatsoever in the middle east.
2)They are geographically at least 2,000-3,000km away from Iran.

That's one problem prevented, but another problem severely aggravated.
With the removal of sanctions on Iran, it can pursue its regional ambitions at a much faster pace. Within the applied norms, Iran's adversaries are already struggling to cope with the volume and intensity of activities of Iran and its proxies.
I've witnessed Iran's tactics first hand. It's not something I want repeated, nor is it something I wish on anyone, even the Saudis which I dislike.

It could even aggravate additional problems - a much accelerated arms race in the middle east could propel Saudi and allies to strive for nukes as a deterrent against Iran's conventional warfare, which in turn would drive Iran to merely conceal its own program.

Then the IRBM problem can begin to be addressed.

I am no longer certain their MRBMs and IRBMs are really an issue. They possess advanced cruise missiles which have less international visibility and a PR footprint than BMs, and which are far more challenging to handle. Recently they've threatened to use them as well as their suicide drones against Israel from Yemen, and already fulfilled their threats against Saudi Arabia.
They don't even have to keep developing their cruise missiles to reach Israel from Iran. They can launch them from Syria, Yemen, even Lebanon or Iraq.

I do agree that Iran is a serious threat, however I also think Israel and the west should be very careful about being drawn into the Saudi - Iranian hate fest.

Israel is drawn into a Saudi-Iranian war? What was the 2006 war in Lebanon then? Iran brought itself to Israel's doorstep with the intent to conduct warfare against it.
People were killed and cities were shutdown in Israel long before the current standoff between Saudi Arabia and Iran evolved to what it is today.

 

[ngatimozart]

It appears that the Israelis are trying to blackmail Biden over the US returning to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), by threatening to attack Iran if the US eases sanctions. I think that this might backfire on them and I certainly hope it does because they are trying to determine the foreign policy of another nation.

Israelis Say They'll Attack Iran If US Eases Sanctions - Breaking Defense

TEL AVIV: Israel has said openly that it will attack Iran if the U.S eases sanctions against the Shiite regime and agrees to go back to the nuclear agreement the Jewish state claims is “the biggest hoax in recent history.” “Israel needs to know — and fast — whether Washington plans to stop...

breakingdefense.com

Articles Tagged: Israel

www.military.com

 

[Feanor]

It appears that the Israelis are trying to blackmail Biden over the US returning to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), by threatening to attack Iran if the US eases sanctions. I think that this might backfire on them and I certainly hope it does because they are trying to determine the foreign policy of another nation.

Israelis Say They'll Attack Iran If US Eases Sanctions - Breaking Defense

TEL AVIV: Israel has said openly that it will attack Iran if the U.S eases sanctions against the Shiite regime and agrees to go back to the nuclear agreement the Jewish state claims is “the biggest hoax in recent history.” “Israel needs to know — and fast — whether Washington plans to stop...

breakingdefense.com

Articles Tagged: Israel

www.military.com

I think it might be even worse then that. Israel is stating they will strike Iran if the US returns to the JCPOA, but Iran has already indicated that they will go ahead with enriching their own uranium if the US doesn't return to JCPOA. I think we can be certain that Israel will strike Iran if Iran appears to be on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon. In other words, Israel will strike Iran whether or not the US returns to the JCPOA, but they're trying to make sure that Iran is under sanctions while it happens, on top of the strike.

 

[2007yellow430]

I think it might be even worse then that. Israel is stating they will strike Iran if the US returns to the JCPOA, but Iran has already indicated that they will go ahead with enriching their own uranium if the US doesn't return to JCPOA. I think we can be certain that Israel will strike Iran if Iran appears to be on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon. In other words, Israel will strike Iran whether or not the US returns to the JCPOA, but they're trying to make sure that Iran is under sanctions while it happens, on top of the strike.

if they actually do that, watch what happens. Biden isn’t Trump. There will be consequences. I heard that this has been communicated to Israel.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

It appears that the Israelis are trying to blackmail Biden over the US returning to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), by threatening to attack Iran if the US eases sanctions. I think that this might backfire on them and I certainly hope it does because they are trying to determine the foreign policy of another nation.

Israelis Say They'll Attack Iran If US Eases Sanctions - Breaking Defense

TEL AVIV: Israel has said openly that it will attack Iran if the U.S eases sanctions against the Shiite regime and agrees to go back to the nuclear agreement the Jewish state claims is “the biggest hoax in recent history.” “Israel needs to know — and fast — whether Washington plans to stop...

breakingdefense.com

Articles Tagged: Israel

www.military.com

Israel is its own state. The US is a superpower, which means its decisions are more important on a global scale - but why should Israelis give preference to American interests over its own?
One of the core principles on which the Israeli-American friendship is based on, is that in at least most cases their interests align perfectly well.

The JCPOA has overall been a very bad thing for Israel - it curbed the nuclear threat to a limited extent, but greatly intensified the already grave conventional threat on Israel. Iranian proxies were forming and arming at a rapid rate, and closing in on Israel primarily in its northern borders.

- MAJOR BENEFICIARIES OF THE IRAN DEAL: IRGC AND HEZBOLLAH

IDF chief warns Israelis: The next war will hit our home front extremely hard

Top military commander vows Israel will block Iranian threats 'even at risk of war,' laments IDF is alone in fight against Tehran

www.timesofisrael.com

We're already at a very bad point in which the IDF leadership agrees that any future conflict in Lebanon will necessarily have to involve some unprecedentedly comprehensive humanitarian operation that might put significant strain on the IDF while simultaneously increase its own casualties.

Iran's nuclear ambitions were not curbed by the JCPOA as planned - it has been confirmed that Iran operated undeclared facilities during the deal, and built the equipment necessary to rush to a bomb as soon as the JCPOA ends, which indeed happened.

An Iranian nuclear bomb is a threat to Israel, and a threat to every other country in the region.
Give me one good reason why we should absolutely avoid conducting our own foreign policy if the US's decisions don't necessarily benefit us.

 

[OPSSG]

Israel is its own state. The US is a superpower, which means its decisions are more important on a global scale - but why should Israelis give preference to American interests over its own?

One of the core principles on which the Israeli-American friendship is based on, is that in at least most cases their interests align perfectly well.

...Give me one good reason why we should absolutely avoid conducting our own foreign policy if the US's decisions don't necessarily benefit us.

Let me reframe this discussion to release the emotion of the above posts.

1. As I said in another thread, Joe Biden, Tony Blinken, Lloyd Austin, Jake Sullivan and Brett McGurk (with the last 2 at the National Security Council) are not stupid, as they would understand Israel better and work in a more productive manner.

2. At every level, the Biden administration is reaching out to their counter parts in Israel to connect and manage the problematic issues, instead of going to the press or getting into a public pissing match. This includes calls through:

(a) Jake Sullivan; and​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1353433548661821440

(b) Lloyd Austin.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1354935034050981895

3. As I said before, the Chinese will tell you that Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo has accelerated America’s decline in influence and felt that they do more harm to American interests than any other US President or Secretary of State, in history. Beijing's conviction is that the U.S. is now rapidly declining, gives Xi strategic patience.

4. Before an American decision is made on the JCPOA, there will be lots of consultation with the relevant leaders in Israel. From my point of view, Brett McGurk is Hawkish on Iran and he will offer a listening ear at the NSA.

5. More importantly, President Biden and his team “recognize that Arab-Israeli normalization is not a substitute for Israeli-Palestinian peace,” said Mills the acting US ambassador to the UN told the Security Council. Mills said, “the United States will urge Israel’s government and the Palestinians to avoid unilateral steps that make a two-state solution more difficult,” such as the annexation of territory, settlement activity, demolitions and providing compensation for individuals in prison for acts of terrorism.

 

[ngatimozart]

Israel is its own state. The US is a superpower, which means its decisions are more important on a global scale - but why should Israelis give preference to American interests over its own?
One of the core principles on which the Israeli-American friendship is based on, is that in at least most cases their interests align perfectly well.

The JCPOA has overall been a very bad thing for Israel - it curbed the nuclear threat to a limited extent, but greatly intensified the already grave conventional threat on Israel. Iranian proxies were forming and arming at a rapid rate, and closing in on Israel primarily in its northern borders.

- MAJOR BENEFICIARIES OF THE IRAN DEAL: IRGC AND HEZBOLLAH

IDF chief warns Israelis: The next war will hit our home front extremely hard

Top military commander vows Israel will block Iranian threats 'even at risk of war,' laments IDF is alone in fight against Tehran

www.timesofisrael.com

We're already at a very bad point in which the IDF leadership agrees that any future conflict in Lebanon will necessarily have to involve some unprecedentedly comprehensive humanitarian operation that might put significant strain on the IDF while simultaneously increase its own casualties.

Iran's nuclear ambitions were not curbed by the JCPOA as planned - it has been confirmed that Iran operated undeclared facilities during the deal, and built the equipment necessary to rush to a bomb as soon as the JCPOA ends, which indeed happened.

An Iranian nuclear bomb is a threat to Israel, and a threat to every other country in the region.
Give me one good reason why we should absolutely avoid conducting our own foreign policy if the US's decisions don't necessarily benefit us.

And Israeli nuclear weapons aren't a threat to the region? Do you have non Israeli - US evidence to support your claim about the Iranian subterfuge? You know both Israel and the US have somewhat of a jaundiced view towards Iran and its vice versa from the Iranian side, so independent verification would be appreciated.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Let me reframe this discussion to release the emotion of the above posts.

1. As I said in another thread, Joe Biden, Tony Blinken, Lloyd Austin, Jake Sullivan and Brett McGurk (with the last 2 at the National Security Council) are not stupid, as they would understand Israel better and work in a more productive manner.

2. At every level, the Biden administration is reaching out to their counter parts in Israel to connect and manage the problematic issues, instead of going to the press or getting into a public pissing match. This includes calls through:

(a) Jake Sullivan; and​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1353433548661821440

(b) Lloyd Austin.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1354935034050981895

3. As I said before, the Chinese will tell you that Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo has accelerated America’s decline in influence and felt that they do more harm to American interests than any other US President or Secretary of State, in history. Beijing's conviction is that the U.S. is now rapidly declining, gives Xi strategic patience.

4. Before an American decision is made on the JCPOA, there will be lots of consultation with the relevant leaders in Israel. From my point of view, Brett McGurk is Hawkish on Iran and he will offer a listening ear at the NSA.

5. More importantly, President Biden and his team “recognize that Arab-Israeli normalization is not a substitute for Israeli-Palestinian peace,” said Mills the acting US ambassador to the UN told the Security Council. Mills said, “the United States will urge Israel’s government and the Palestinians to avoid unilateral steps that make a two-state solution more difficult,” such as the annexation of territory, settlement activity, demolitions and providing compensation for individuals in prison for acts of terrorism.

1. Obama and his administration were also not stupid. Yet even at the time of signing of the deal, it faced great opposition due to a lot of faults in it. There's plenty of room to make more mistakes even if the big issues of involving Arab states and Israel in the talks are fixed. For example the non-binary autonomy they have in the process.

2. Again relating to autonomy, there's a big difference between merely consulting and actually having them in the talks. And of course, the administration can choose to give any amount of weight to its middle eastern allies' concerns.

3. It does China service. Not just Trump's destructive behavior (in most cases), but the image alone of this case. Even if you just create the notion of America's decline, much more influence can be gained by China.

4. Already discussed.

5. Such rhetoric by Biden hurts not only the prospect of Arab-Israeli peace and normalization, but also an Israeli-Palestinian peace.
The conventional way of negotiations never worked, despite seeing so many Israeli and American administrations trying, with a whopping 2 Palestinian leaders.
IMO it has been because the Palestinians never had any incentive to make peace with Israel, as they're ruled with an iron fist by a rich elite that doesn't give a shit about the people, and profits from conflict.
The Arab-Israeli peace can put a lot of pressure on Palestine, and this could be a good venue to make progress.

Thanks, OPSSG, for the pleasant debate. It's a rare commodity.

 

[OPSSG]

And Israeli nuclear weapons aren't a threat to the region?

1. I don’t understand your question. Israel does not intend to use the Samson Option unless in defeat. Currently, as long as they have make their own tanks, have ammo and conscription, the IAF can’t be easily defeated by any Arab or Persian army. However, their population centres can be destroyed (or made uninhabitable), if some of their religiously motivated enemies attack them with nuclear weapons.

Do you have... evidence to support your claim about the Iranian subterfuge?

2. It is quite clear that Iran has exercised some level of influence or even actual control over its proxies to attack the US embassy, recently.

Q1: Are you talking about Iranian proxies in Iraq and Syria?​

OR​

Q2: Are you talking about IRGC launching small explosive-laden delta-wing drones from Iraq into Saudi Arabia at ranges of 600-700 kilometers—first in May 2019 against the East-West oil pipeline, and again that Sep 2019 against the Abqaiq oil processing plant?​

3. Iran is now attacking more than just Saudi oil production facilities. See link on Jan 2021 attacks: Drones Over Riyadh: Unpacking the Iran Threat Network’s Tactics. That is undeniable.

You know both Israel and the US have somewhat of a jaundiced view towards Iran and its vice versa from the Iranian side, so independent verification would be appreciated.

4. This I agree. Especially on the need to question some American talking points.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

And Israeli nuclear weapons aren't a threat to the region? Do you have non Israeli - US evidence to support your claim about the Iranian subterfuge? You know both Israel and the US have somewhat of a jaundiced view towards Iran and its vice versa from the Iranian side, so independent verification would be appreciated.

No, I do not believe it is a threat.
Exhibit A - Some of Israel's hardest wars were fought whilst Israel already had nukes.
Exhibit B - Israel has never threatened anyone with nukes, and I argue its ambiguity allows it and its adversaries to throw punches without resorting to mass destruction.

Yes, I have other sources. It was confirmed by the IAEA.
Unfortunately my google foo did not yield good results in a minute's search and I'm kinda busy so I will either edit this comment later or add a new one, with the sources, so don't reply to it yet.

EDIT: Iran nuclear deal: IAEA finds uranium particles at undeclared site

 

[Ananda]

The Shah's Atomic Dreams

More than three decades ago, before there was an Islamic Republic, the West sought desperately to prevent Iran's ruler from getting his hands on the…

foreignpolicy.com

This old article always remind me on the problem with Nuclear proliferation. Shah definitely knows about existence of nuclear Israel. He has relative good relationship with Israel, perhaps he doesn't strive to have it right away, but decided to build Iran nuclear Technology to keep the options open.

What if Iranian revolution can be pacified by Shah? Will West especially US will in the end let Iran having nuclear weapon capabilities? Knowing Shah potentially will then told US; if you let Israel own that, why you want to block that capabilities from us ?

Perhaps Saudi if all the rumours on their involvement with Pakistan nuclear program true, already have the options to get warheads from Pakistan for their Chinese IRBM. After all those IRBM is nuclear capable.

My point is, when one in region already have nuclear, sooner or later someone else in region will going all the way to have it.

There's a reason for US nuclear umbrella for Japan and South Korea. Both have very advance nuclear program and tech capabilities. It won't be difficult for both of them to go nuclear weaponised in very short term. US guarantee is one of main thing that keep them from developing themselves.

Trump stupid diplomatic plays on threatening both South Korea and Japan for less US defense umbrella, already prompt some Nationalist hard liners in both countries to think for developments of their own nuclear capabilities against both China and DPRK.