Is this a threat and a public admission that Israel owns a nuclear bomb?
Middle East Defence & Security
- Thread starter MaenZ
- Start date
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
IRGC activists on media are claiming Soroka hospital was adjacent to a military installation.
Only if adjacent means a mile apart.
And the strike utilized cluster munitions apparently
Only if adjacent means a mile apart.
And the strike utilized cluster munitions apparently
Last edited:
The Tel Aviv hospital that was struck with shock wave is the main one that receives IDF casualties from Gaza. Is this legitimate target then? What does says IDF RoE in the ghetto Gaza and their experiance with destroying all hospitals there and executing medical staff?
Last edited:
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
This is most likely a feint. Israel will probably conclude its operation long before 2 weeks pass.
Is there information known on where the I.D.F refuels its aircraft obviously the closer to the target the more reach these aircraft have into western Iran also saying that the I.D.F would not admit to having such aircraft in a vulnerable position unless the security of the aircraft was secure
This is an article claiming significant loss to the launchers , certainly bias may be claimed but if true significant launches of missiles would be seen as per some above articles
www.jpost.com
This is an article claiming significant loss to the launchers , certainly bias may be claimed but if true significant launches of missiles would be seen as per some above articles
Iran knowingly targeting Israeli citizens with advance missiles | The Jerusalem Post
Iran has lost more than half its missile launchers. However, Tehran’s regime is still able to wield the missiles with deadly effect.
www.jpost.com
as per some claims not evacuated
'I was lying in bed... The ceiling fell in': At the scene of Israeli hospital hit by Iran strike
A hospital in the Israeli town of Beersheba was hit as Iran fired a barrage of missiles at the country.
www.bbc.com
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
There was one documentation of aerial refueling conducted over Syria from the first 1-2 days of the war. Nothing since then.Is there information known on where the I.D.F refuels its aircraft obviously the closer to the target the more reach these aircraft have into western Iran also saying that the I.D.F would not admit to having such aircraft in a vulnerable position unless the security of the aircraft was secure
This is an article claiming significant loss to the launchers , certainly bias may be claimed but if true significant launches of missiles would be seen as per some above articles
Iran knowingly targeting Israeli citizens with advance missiles | The Jerusalem Post
Iran has lost more than half its missile launchers. However, Tehran’s regime is still able to wield the missiles with deadly effect.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Have I not provided enough to go on here? It is not my prerogative for you to accept my conclusions or reason because I know to begin with they will not be accepted, which is completely fine.
The reality is that there are other sides than Israel to the negotiations. One of them is Iran and others include everyone else in the world. Bilateral implies two parties, by definition. Just like Iranian enrichment is not acceptable to Israel, no enrichment is not acceptable to Iran. So it seems there is an impasse here. However, the purpose of the negotiations from the very beginning was to find the solution acceptable to most, not just Israel or/and Iran.
Sure, all possible. However, all three refer to the same point, number three in your list (and it circles back to my point of “best timing”).
In essence, Israel had never had a negotiating position here. It has a stance and a demand: no enrichment in Iran period. And they do everything to achieve that goal. That’s not what the rest of the world was negotiating though. The rest of the (western) world has their own goals and interests, which, frankly, greatly diverge from Israeli demands. One being to deprive Iran of possessing nuclear weapons (but not enrichment, nullifying which would be the ideal state, but not reasonably achievable). Another being not to have an active war in Iran (or elsewhere in the middle east or elsewhere generally, really) because they (Europe in particular) really don’t want another wave of immigration which would without a doubt happen if Iran is wrecked. And I am not talking only about Iran here, but migration in the middle east as a whole in this case. We have been through that a few times now. Merz showed himself to be a dummy again with his comment of “Israel is doing everyone’s dirty work”. The current events are categorically against the European interests at their very core. That’s why there never were multilateral negotiations until tomorrow, where Europeans will probably try to convince Iran to give up on the enrichment program (but more likely than not they will not succeed). Note that Iran had already chosen to get wrecked over their stance because everything I argued so far is not a secret. Whether they expected for things to unfold the way they did is very questionable (they didn’t), but the fact remains.
Everyone, including Euros, Russians, Chinese, and Americans, but Israel (I can’t speak for the Arabs, but they have little to no say anyway) found the JCPOA to be an acceptable resolution. When Trump came to office, the never previously exacting opportunity opened up for Israel: they had to convince one man (who is generally sceptical of common sense) to exit the agreement, which he did. It’s been a clusterfuck, pardon my language, ever since.
To the professional negotiations point you made. The negotiations that preceded the JCPOA were, in fact, professional. It was a multi-state solution that involved very intensive work and expertise. Sure, Israel did not want to have any of it because, like I said before, they do not have a negotiating position, but a demand and no flexibility (this is an understandable position, btw; whether it is entirely rational can be argued though).
The negotiations that preceded the current developments, on the other hand, were anything but professional. First of all, the negotiations were between Iran and Israel (via the United States - or Trump, to be more precise - because it is almost entirely representing Israeli interest here, not their own, definitely not since the kinetic action began at the very least). While I already expressed my opinion on the Israeli negotiating terms (they don’t exist), for this very reason there was no one else involved, no other states, no experts, nothing of substance, but contradictory statements from the main negotiator (Witkoff) and the boss (Trump). The likely outcome was predictable, but definitely not certain had the negotiations continued. See my other post for the rest of the story.
Most contradictory were the statements made by the people involved on the American side. These were not media interpretations, but direct statements by the individuals.
I agree and I stated as much.
Put this way (and your one and two are the same thing), there was no deal to be made because enrichment is the bottom line that is not going to be crossed by Iran even now, in my opinion, but we shall see.
You are building your argument entirely from the Israeli perspective. There is an entire world out there that have their own interests that, in most cases, do align with yours, to put it simply. I believe we had very briefly discussed something similar in the “unity” or whatever thread.
This is simply not true and you argue aginst it yourself:
2010 was certainly far from ideal - quite the opposite, in fact. Due to the one reason you described yourself. The same reason that makes it ideal today. There was no chance any of this would be acceptable under Obama and (heavily) Democrat-dominated Congress of 2010.
You would have to trust me on this, but your assertion could not be further from reality.
Sure, I agree. His actions are way weaker than his words. Be it his first term or second. I don’t want to touch politics, so I will settle on the relevance to the forum. His negotiating skills have so far proven to be beyond subpar. The strategy of seeding chaos to increase/demonstrate leverage has not worked (it is a failure, really) in trade negotiations; good effing luck using the same strategy in geopolitical context, especially as it relates to the “existential” issues, or otherwise major issues that have a great effect on the entire world. So far, his failure is quite obvious. I am going to stop here (and risk you not accepting my argument or conclusion, ha).
You keep insisting that I (and others) do not understand what nuclear breakout is. I can’t speak for others, but I can assure you that I personally understand the meaning and the general process behind it (I would argue that my understanding is better than that of an average person). The point you seem to be intentionally missing is the fact that Benjamin talked about “very quickly” in 2018; “weeks away” in 2015; “six months away” in 2012; “Iran is gearing up to produce 25 atomic bombs a year, 250 in a decade” in 2006; “three to five years” in 1995. This is not even a complete list, at that.
There is a valid reason to be at least sceptical of Benjamin’s claims. However, I would suggest that his claims now are closest to reality than ever before because of his very own efforts.
Source as indicated on the image.
Yes, I am aware of how gravity works. I was just curious how the flat-earthers explain it.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Or, interpreted more reasonably, things are bad, but they could be worse is we get nuked, no?
On the subject of “difficult days ahead”, however:
And what is reasonably with her Netanyahu
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
The only reason to believe a case would not be accepted in a test of logic is if the case is wrong.
You based your argument on reasons you wished not to discuss but the reasons are non factual.
You argued for example that the US withdrew unilaterally from JCPOA. But it was not unilateral. It was bilateral. Iran violated it, the US+IAEA gave it time to explain said violations. Iran refused, and the US then later withdrew.
Your wording also suggested the JCPOA was positive for the US and Israel. But this is also counter-factual. The intent of the JCPOA was to delay, not prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon, in exchange for allowing Iran to massively invest in its conventional capabilities across the region to deter an attack.
From the perspective of a US president for whom "long term" is 4-8 years, a "kicking the can down the road" solution is often optimal. It was an agreement between two parties that did not include the most affected - Israel. But it is impossible to debate the JCPOA while actively refusing to learn its core subject - breakout time.
It's fine if you refuse to continue talking about your reasons, but then you shouldn't use the conclusion as a basis for other things, or assert it thinking it would not be challenged.
Sure. When it comes to negotiations, it's often better to be inclusive, rather than exclusive. The JCPOA involved more than just the US and Iran. It involved other industrious nations. Perfectly fine. Just not a good strategy to exclude the one nation that could object via a military strike. Similarly here, in the 2025 negotiations. Though I do believe Israel was involved, via multiple possible scenarios.
I disagree on there being an impasse. Iran insisted on enrichment while it had actual enrichment infrastructure. It lost most of it, now down to just Fordow. If Israel and the US succeed in persuading the Fordow facility to un-exist, then the negotiations can resume with the enrichment topic resolved.
My point #3 and your theory of best timing seem mutually exclusive.
To remind us, my point #3 theorizes the negotiations were a facade, i.e. coordinated by Israel and US to eliminate the program, or be pleasantly surprised with voluntary Iranian surrender.
Your theory, as I understand it, accepted the negotiations as sincere, with Israel torpedoing them to capitalize on operational conditions.
Again, this conflicts with the fact that if you negotiate over someone's head, you won't get the outcome because that other party will enforce its own reality.
I do not see a basis for this claim. First, many Iranians have fled Iran long before the war. The Iranian diaspora is >4 million according to Wikipedia (2021). But they are not to be compared with Arab immigrants. The Iranian diaspora is western-minded, hard working, and a quality population wherever they go. I have also seen no evidence of Persians increasing local crime rates.
Arabs typically flee their states, e.g. Syria and Libya, to flee a local civil war. But what happens in Iran is not a civil war. It is bombardment of IRGC assets and persons, something they view very positively and as a sign of potential relief and increase to quality of life. So I see many factors that are directly opposite to factors of Arab immigration.
Why would a war in Iran cause migration elsewhere?
I disagree. I think he meant that in a positive way, i.e. Israel doing what benefits Europe.
I can find several benefits to Europe:
- Reduced nuclear threat.
- Reduced conventional threat.
- From Russia.
- And directly from Iran.
- Invalidation of Europe-based Iranian activities.
- Elimination of the main immigration driver (IRGC-initiated wars e.g. Syria).
- Elimination of trade blocking entity.
- Realized in Red Sea.
- Threatened in Persian Gulf.
And I can find one downside to Europe:
- Energy prices temporarily increased.
- For Axis-affiliated nations (e.g. Spain, Ireland, Norway) - loss of an ally.
I find that hard to believe. Europe as a whole is quite antagonistic to Israel and historically also antagonistic to the idea of security.
Israel had the strongest position. But the agreement eventually failed because said position was not taken into account. As the sole western military power in the middle east in the Obama era, Israel alone could easily negate the agreement with a strike. A lot depended on its good will with the US.
Israel's position is in the best interest of the west. It's not something I say as an Israeli, but something I say as someone who understands the impact of doing the opposite.
I am an ethnic Ukrainian born in Israel. My family is split between both states. That means every part of my family lives in a nation that is under fire, and which has to employ a "peace through strength" mindset to survive.
Europe, Canada, UK and others in the west, live under no threat, and can afford decadence and whinyism. The policies they try to dictate to the normal nations are contrary to what they need to survive. They are anti-security. Hence it makes a lot of sense to simply ignore them, and implement policies that benefit them in the hope that they will grow out of the nonsense.
There is a spectrum to things. I do not subscribe to the idea of binari thought. Israel is not a rogue nation, but it can be pushed to take unilateral action if it deems the threat severe. IIRC Former cabinet officials testified that in 2010 there was a majority opinion to strike in Iran and that Netanyahu vetoed it.
The strikes in Iraq and Syria were independent action against US wishes, but they turned out right in the end.
There is a balance between maintaining good relations with the US and taking independent action when the US is compromised.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
You give this example, but it is an example of what exactly? What is your point?
I believe in all these cases he was either right, or no reason to believe he wasn't. What is your point?
What is your point with this graph?