Middle East Defence & Security

[KipPotapych]

That information as well as BDA (except final conclusion) are unlikely to be shared with the public.
I also assumed at first that each hole got 2 MOPs, but I find that odd.
If it was 2 per hole, the result would be 3 MOPs detonating at target depth, in very close proximity to one another.
They are sufficiently spaced apart, in my assessment, to negate the option of 6 bombs drilling for one another. The pattern also appears too consistent to be CEP related so multiple shots per hole is logical.
I do not see a point in detonating 3 MOPs in such proximity unless it was to collapse something underneath. But then, wouldn't it make sense to just keep drilling with those same munitions instead?

One theory I heard is that instead of 2-2-2 MOPs for 3 holes, it is 1-4-1.
I do not know why, but it seems more logical to me by process of elimination.

I have been looking at the images, did some reading on the subject, some thinking. It seems to me that the theory of multiple entries per hole is science fiction. Two bombs hitting about the same spot is not a given. CEP of the MOPs is a “few meters” (maybe someone can post the actual numbers, I didn’t search that far down). 12 bombs hitting 6 spots, two per, is extremely unlikely. 4 in one hole is beyond extremely unlikely.



From here: https://x.com/DefMon3/status/1936728586549174569

Both strikes reportedly hit ventilation shafts. You can clearly see the remains of the above ground structures at both strike points. I would think that the spread alone is a good indicator of the science fiction theory I proposed. It’s a hell of an accuracy considering what we are dealing with here, but multiple projectiles entering the “same hole(s)” (multiple times over) is not it. I do not think there is evidence of twelve bombs dropped at Fordow, as suggested by some. One example:

Eveleth said the Maxar imagery of Fordow and Caine's comments indicated that the B-2s dropped an initial load of six MOPs on Fordow, followed by a "double tap" of six more in the exact same spots.

It seems to me that people are reconciling what they see with what has been reported.

I want to note that I am completely out off my element here and simply looking for answers. The theory of multiple entries doesn’t seem reasonable to me. We have seven bombers reported, seven visible holes, but fourteen bombs reportedly dropped.

Bit of a reach but perhaps Trumpy shows that he's pressuring Israel out of the 12 hours he promised

I don’t believe he promised the 12 hours. My understanding is he was talking nonsense and people tried to make sense off it. He then clearly “twitted” the “CEASEFIRE IS NOW IN EFFECT. PLEASE DO NOT VIOLATE IT!” I mean the 12 plus 12 hours thing did not make any sense to begin with. I couldn’t reason it until his “tweet”.

But it would be incorrect to state that Iran demonstrated a capability to hurt Israel.

I think this is a question of time, really. If Iran could (questionable) sustain sending a dozen or two ballistic missiles a day for a couple of months, sometimes more, sometimes less, purely economic damage would be more than significant. Not because of what it hits, if anything at all, but due to the disruption of economic activity.


An alternative analysis of the results of the Israeli and American strikes on the nuclear infrastructure in Iran:

Post-Attack Assessment of the First 12 Days of Israeli Strikes on Iranian Nuclear Facilities | ISIS Reports | Institute For Science And International Security

I think some of their conclusions are premature. We will see what is revealed days/weeks from now. I, personally, do not see this “ceasefire” to be very lasting.

 

[seaspear]

Well much of the discussion on the I.D.F,s attacks on Iran have focussed on the nuclear enrichment and possible weapons grade material being produced a consideration should be considered of the number of ballistic missiles fired at Israel its hard to get accurate numbers but appears larger in number than Russian against Ukraine

https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2025/06/israels-attack-and-the-limits-of-irans-missile-strategy/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-orders-material-from-china-that-can-make-some-800-ballistic-missiles-report/

this article goes into some detail of programs linking missile development to nuclear weapons

NCRI Reveals Iran’s Secret ‘Rainbow’ Facility Linked to Nuclear Weapons and Missile Program - NCRI

A new exposé by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) unveils an alarming secret project by Iran’s Organization of Defensive Innovation and

www.ncr-iran.org

this article goes into more detail of Irans missiles

https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/weapon-program-background-report/table-irans-missile-arsenal

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I have been looking at the images, did some reading on the subject, some thinking. It seems to me that the theory of multiple entries per hole is science fiction. Two bombs hitting about the same spot is not a given. CEP of the MOPs is a “few meters” (maybe someone can post the actual numbers, I didn’t search that far down). 12 bombs hitting 6 spots, two per, is extremely unlikely. 4 in one hole is beyond extremely unlikely.

Few questions:

1. Why is it science fiction? Are you aware that sub-meter CEP90 is not only achievable, but quite common today?
2. Can you substantiate the claim that MOP CEP is "few meters"?
3. Why do you think someone can post actual numbers of something classified?
4. We see 6 holes and the Twitter post you quoted says 12 were likely dropped on Fordow and 2 on Natanz given the depth disparity. What happened to the other 6? Can you find their entry holes?

There are many ways to guide a bomb. If one cannot fit a terminal guidance section on its front or body, then it can use a combination of jam-resistant GPS and an IMU. Aircraft like the B-2 would certainly have a highly precise, highly jam resistant GPS and very high quality IMU. That would be necessary to ensure the first bomb reaches the precise location set for it.
Then the GPS and IMU on each bomb will determine the relative position of following impacts relative to the first bomb, because they're using the same reference location (B-2's navigation system).
An expensive and strategic munition like the MOP would also certainly have a high quality navigation system.
Even if we assume a worst case scenario where there is significant GPS jamming and the MOP relies solely on an IMU, it is still very much a stand-in weapon with short flight distance and time, resulting in a very low drift.

Both strikes reportedly hit ventilation shafts. You can clearly see the remains of the above ground structures at both strike points. I would think that the spread alone is a good indicator of the science fiction theory I proposed.

We see 2 patterns in sat images:

• Line
• Corner

Both appear to be precise, and not indicative of a random spread.

but multiple projectiles entering the “same hole(s)” (multiple times over) is not it. I do not think there is evidence of twelve bombs dropped at Fordow, as suggested by some.

As suggested by the defense briefing.
Image from tweet you linked:


Image from briefing showing 14 B-2 due east, each with capacity for 2 MOPs.


That means you are effectively contesting the numbers presented by DoD. Understandable, but that is grasping at straws.

I think this is a question of time, really. If Iran could (questionable) sustain sending a dozen or two ballistic missiles a day for a couple of months, sometimes more, sometimes less, purely economic damage would be more than significant. Not because of what it hits, if anything at all, but due to the disruption of economic activity.

What usually happens when a conflict evolves to a protracted campaign is Israel's Homefront Command relaxes guidelines even without improvements to the security situation, to allow the economy to resume. We've seen that vs Hamas, vs Hezbollah, and many times over the years.
Before the first week's end I was already working from my office.

 

[SinisterMinister]

The IDF does release numbers to the press. It is verifiable via footage coming from Iran, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq, especially at night when most launches occurred, and when ballistic missiles are clearly visible in the sky.
Also verifiable from live feed cameras overlooking the entire Israeli skyline, which you could find on Youtube.
Also the ban is on publishing footage of the strike shortly when it occurs. But the media always arrives on scene to report and of course film.

So yes, there is a good reason to believe these numbers. Especially when they are so easily verifiable and not at all hindered by any filming ban.


Also doesn't take a genius to read the actual article and see that there are conflicting assessments from anonymous sources.
Wait until there is something conclusive that's not from "sources said".



Can you provide any basis to the claims:
1. 300m depth.
2. "Certainly not destroyed".
Much appreciated.


Please next time bother reading the material you post.
I am quoting Dr Jeffrey's linked post:
"The 400 kg of HEU was largely stored in underground tunnels near the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility. Despite extensive Israeli and US attacks the facility, there does not seem to have been any effort to destroy these tunnels or the material that was in them"

Emphasis WAS.
He notes he did not observe damage. Why? In the next post in that thread:
"No one even knows where the HEU is now!"

So Jeffrey says the strike was a failure. Nice headline.
He explains it by saying the storage facility wasn't struck.
He then explains it wasn't struck because the public doesn't know where the HEU is.
So clickbait. As usual.



Remember that this is not the only assessment, and that the US officially denied it. Leaks are inherently political, hence the information is political, whether in essence or presentation.
Also these sites aren't unknown. Just undisclosed to the public.



Because if they dared rush to a bomb they'd get 12 days of whoop ass.

A smelly man named Hitler approaches you and says he pinky promises not to invade Poland. Would you believe him? If you did, that's a Fatwa.


Right because the Mossad and CIA had to beg the IAEA to reveal that while I was looking at them through Google Earth.
Are you not aware that the IAEA gets the location of Iranian nuclear sites from agencies like Mossad and CIA?
The US withdrew from the JCPOA after Israel, not the IAEA, revealed undisclosed nuclear sites.

For a second there I thought engaging with you was a good idea, thanks for disabusing me of that notion.

Clearly a world where the IDF is to be taken at face value, US intelligence leaks *pessimistic* versions of their assessments to the press, and where Israel only bombs the nuclear sites the IAEA knows about despite having perfect knowledge of everything is not the same world I live in.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

For a second there I thought engaging with you was a good idea, thanks for disabusing me of that notion.

I'm always happy to debate. Please do return when you think you can handle an argument/opinion being challenged.

Clearly a world where the IDF is to be taken at face value, US intelligence leaks *pessimistic* versions of their assessments to the press, and where Israel only bombs the nuclear sites the IAEA knows about despite having perfect knowledge of everything is not the same world I live in.

I do not understand your argument here. Mind if I ask a few questions?

1. Are you saying I recommended taking IDF claims at face value? If so, you could easily quote me on that.
2. Are you saying the DIA preliminary report is not "pessimistic" despite the report literally referring to a "worst case" scenario and relying on preliminary findings only?
3. Are you generally okay with making conclusions based on preliminary findings?
4. What is the basis for the claim that the IDF only struck nuclear sites familiar to the IAEA?

Israel-Iran confrontation is mostly on pause. Let's go over it and events on other fronts:

IRAN
More info on Isfahan strike.
Translation:
1. The attacked site is an isolated UGF that contained most of the enriched material.
2. The American strike blocked both entrances.
3. The intent was to prevent Iranian transfer of material.
4. Since the strike, the area is under constant surveillance.
5. Earlier Israel struck a nearby above-ground uranium conversion (from gas to metal) facility.
6. Official familiar with the strike details: If they'll try to reach the stockpile, we'll see it. It'll give us new targets.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937806458168414644

Trump warns of additional strikes if nuclear work resumes. This is likely related to attempts to extract the buried enriched uranium.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937796043480973560

David Albright and his institute ISIS have conducted an early analysis of the strikes:

Post-Attack Assessment of the First 12 Days of Israeli Strikes on Iranian Nuclear Facilities | ISIS Reports | Institute For Science And International Security

Considering the damage to Iran's three known enrichment facilities, the destruction of Iran's centrifuge manufacturing capabilities, its uranium conversion facility, uranium metal production plant, and other facilities involved in its nuclear weaponization process, reconstituting these capabilities will take significant time, investment, and energy to return to its previous state before the war or build nuclear weapons. Iran has likely lost close to 20,000 centrifuges at Natanz and Fordow, creating a major bottleneck in any reconstitution effort. Moreover, there has been considerable damage to Iran’s ability to build the nuclear weapon itself.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937617920508531159

Further, reposted by Albright. There seems to be a consensus about the DIA "worst case scenario" report being low confidence and very narrow in scope. But what's interesting is that Trumpy claimed that Israel assessed the situation from the ground.
If you remember, I mentioned several times before the strike on Fordow and even long before the war, that one of Israel's options for attacking UGFs is via ground teams. Depending on the type of personnel used, the mission and its risks could significantly vary. But attacking from the air and doing only BDA from the ground, appears to be a much lower risk option.
I'm not sure of the method. It could involve pre-installed reconnaissance equipment via a ground team before a strike, and relaying that information later.
Israel's significant ground element in Iran shown publicly on the first day of the war, is testament to this capability, even if the report is difficult to verify.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937610146278265293

It's natural for assessments to vary at this early stage. I will personally refrain from making conclusions until a certain grace period. Perhaps a month from now.
What we can assess for now is the production capability of missiles, centrifuges, air defenses, various electronics and other industrial capabilities that could allow Iran to rearm. It will take a long time for Iran to restore its industrial capacity, while Israel continues rearming, as Kamala once said - unburdened by what has been.
Iran's conventional capabilities were no less important than its nuclear ones, and together they form the complete picture of the Iranian threat.



A Jordanian photographer managed to film Iranian missile barrages on Israel country-wide.
Of the 41 volleys launched at Israel, he captured 6. But it's estimated that about half of the missiles were fired in those 6.
Excluding SM-3 which were not observed, 82 missiles were counted, roughly evenly split between THAAD and Arrow.

This does not count lower tier systems like the David's Sling and Iron Dome (which surprisingly was recorded several times engaging MRBMs.

https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1220527/exhaustion-and-inflection-estimating-interceptor-expenditures-in-the-israel-iran-conflict/

LEBANON

As of today, Hezbollah hasn't conducted even symbolic attacks. The ceasefire agreement holds.
Israel continues to strike Hezbollah targets as per agreement, which significantly harms Hezbollah's ability to reconstitute.
No major developments since the ceasefire.

GAZA

GHF is proving its success more and more, replacing corrupt middlemen and delivering food aid straight to the people, free of charge.
Hamas is increasingly panicking about it, claiming every day about mass civilian casualties in these events. The killings are reportedly conducted by the Hamas's Sahm police unit.
At first, they targeted local collaborators with the GHF program, but recently started killing simple Palestinians to deter from going to the GHF and to buy aid from Hamas and UNRWA instead.

Palestinian Authority Daily: Hamas Is Murdering Civilians Who Come To The Gaza Aid Distribution Centers

In its June 19, 2025 editorial, the Palestinian Authority Al-Hayat Al-Jadida daily accused Hamas of murdering Gaza residents trying to get to the American food aid distribution centers established in the Gaza strip. According to the article, "death squads" from Hamas's Al-Sahm unit[1] hunt down...

www.memri.org

This morning, it was cleared for publication that 7 IDF soldiers were killed in an attack on a Puma CEV, based on a Centurion platform.
It is not yet known whether it was via RPG or a planted charge. Although heavily armored, it is still generations apart from the Namer CEV. It is not known whether the Namer would necessarily survive, but it could increase chances of survival. The deceased belong to the 605th combat engineering battalion, part of the 188th armor brigade.
The IDF has 2 more such battalions in active duty and many more in reserve. Despite introducing to service the first Namer CEV in 2016, the active units have still not fully switched. The 605th was to start receiving theirs in 2026.
This further illustrates how despite massive defense expenses, the IDF is struggling to modernize.
Puma CEV:

Namer CEV:

 

[Feanor]

The IDF does release numbers to the press. It is verifiable via footage coming from Iran, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq, especially at night when most launches occurred, and when ballistic missiles are clearly visible in the sky.
Also verifiable from live feed cameras overlooking the entire Israeli skyline, which you could find on Youtube.
Also the ban is on publishing footage of the strike shortly when it occurs. But the media always arrives on scene to report and of course film.

So yes, there is a good reason to believe these numbers. Especially when they are so easily verifiable and not at all hindered by any filming ban.

Always arrives on scene to report? Here's an on-the-ground reporter disagreeing. I suspect that publicly available BDA on strikes landing in Israel is quite incomplete.

Colonelcassad

Журналистка немецкого издания ARD жалуется на лютую цензуру в Израиле, которая не давала снимать и показывать прилеты по военным и стратегическим объектам и их последствиям. Дело в том, что когда берутся сравнивать ущерб Ирана и Израиля, в основном сравнивают то, что просочилось в открытые...

t.me

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Always arrives on scene to report? Here's an on-the-ground reporter disagreeing. I suspect that publicly available BDA on strikes landing in Israel is quite incomplete.

Not BDA. The point of the ban is to mitigate BDA capability.
Not to hide the fact an impact occurred.
A wide range of publicly available tools allow verifying things like launches, intercepts, and impacts. Even during low visibility (daytime).

 

[Karl Franz]

I have been following this "war" quit closely the last two weeks not wanting to comment as I find the entire situation strange to a point that the word staged comes to mind.

Clearly the US Iranian exchange was either completely or almost completely staged. The Iranians gave the time, the location, probably even the number of missiles before they attacked the US base and with ample of time for US to evacuate anything that was of any value. I mean the only thing left for Iranians was to promise to rebuild any building that gets damaged in an unlikely event that any missile comes through. As for the US strikes, does anybody seriously believe that all it takes to destroy or seriously damage the Iranian nuclear program was six or eight or twelve bombs, particularly as Iran evacuated the sites two days before the bombs fell, again suspiciously at the exact time when the bombers were taking off from the US? And, if that's all that it takes, why didn't the US do it before? Why all the negotiations, the involvement of UN, the political backlash the Obama administration took for the deal when they could get rid of the problem so easily?

Then we come to Israel, which started this bombing campaign with stated goal of destroying Iran's nuclear program and its ballistic missile program, both of which are impossible with the means Israel has at its disposal. Therefore, we can logically assume that the above mentioned goals were a cover for attempted regime change in Iran as stated by Netanyahu when he called up Iranians to overthrow the regime. But this also doesn't make sense as you cannot overthrow the regime without taking out its leader which was strictly forbidden by the Trump administration before the "war" started.

The only other goal Israel might have had was to drag the US and Iran into open war, but this was also unlikely to happen, which we can conclude from both current behavior from both US and Iran, and also the last time they were close to conflict after the assassination of Soleimani when both sides were primarily looking for exit strategies.

Overall, in my opinion, this war's primary theater of operations was information/media space, with both sides flooding the airwaves with significant exaggerations of their successes followed by downplaying of the opponents ones.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I have been following this "war" quit closely the last two weeks not wanting to comment as I find the entire situation strange to a point that the word staged comes to mind.

Clearly the US Iranian exchange was either completely or almost completely staged. The Iranians gave the time, the location, probably even the number of missiles before they attacked the US base and with ample of time for US to evacuate anything that was of any value. I mean the only thing left for Iranians was to promise to rebuild any building that gets damaged in an unlikely event that any missile comes through.

Many wars end with an "off ramp", which involves a lot of theatrics.
All parties involved had a significant interesting in making the war as short as possible, whether for military (Iran), political (USA) or economical (Israel) reasons.

As for the US strikes, does anybody seriously believe that all it takes to destroy or seriously damage the Iranian nuclear program was six or eight or twelve bombs, particularly as Iran evacuated the sites two days before the bombs fell, again suspiciously at the exact time when the bombers were taking off from the US? And, if that's all that it takes, why didn't the US do it before? Why all the negotiations, the involvement of UN, the political backlash the Obama administration took for the deal when they could get rid of the problem so easily?

Nobody believes the strike on Fordow was sufficient. Because it was really not the main feature of the war. The IDF says 9 nuclear facilities were hit. What classifies something as a nuclear site - I don't know. I assume it's the big ones + research, weaponization, manufacturing, and other facilities that don't necessarily require a large independent site.
We know of at least 4 main sites that were hit hard - Isfahan, Arak, Natanz, and Fordow.
Sites in Tehran and other cities were also reportedly hit.

Nuclear programs are actually very simple. The weaponization process was complete in what's closing in on a century.
But the long process of enrichment cannot be skipped.
Iran has 2 main enrichment sites - Natanz and Fordow. Natanz was operational for a long time with old rudimentary centrifuges.
Fordow is a newer site and was equipped with modern centrifuges.
That is why despite hitting many more sites - they received all the media attention. Fordow in particular because it was the most well defended one.

So no, it wasn't just a couple bombs. Because it wasn't just Fordow. It was a well thought out campaign executed over a span of almost 2 weeks.
The US got to do the closing ceremony largely for theatrical purposes, although it did make the job easier.

As for why it wasn't struck before - it's mostly political.
On Israel's side, Netanyahu is a coward. Plain and simple. He chickened out of every opportunity to strike when the military apparatus recommended one.

On the US's side, for obvious reasons another war in the middle east, even if only a short one, will have negative political consequences. Or at least non-positive ones. Even if it's just for a month.

What happened in the end is a good compromise.
Israel does 90% of the work but gets assurances that higher risk operations will get de-risked with US assistance.
The US can appear for just a brief moment for the 10%, take credit, and get a political boost for solving a military issue without entering a war. Most of its contribution is defensive which does not have negative political connotations.

There's also the difference between Trump and Biden/Obama.
All 3 are logically averse to military action. They all want peace and calm, and be portrayed as peacemakers if war does start.
But Trump has a more proactive approach that does not rule out limited military action.
He reduced involvement in Ukraine in 2025, but fought for many years to make Europe more independent (from Russian energy) and better armed in the lead-up to the 2022 war in Ukraine.
He is now similarly pushing for massive increases in defense spending within NATO.
These are things Obama and Biden didn't do. They preferred diplomacy and trade with adversaries to deter hostility, but also failed to respond when adversaries became more hostile and aggressive.
Also all 3 would rather kick the can down the road if they can. But Trump's more proactive and less limited approach allows him to do that sometimes with fewer negative consequences.

Then we come to Israel, which started this bombing campaign with stated goal of destroying Iran's nuclear program and its ballistic missile program, both of which are impossible with the means Israel has at its disposal. Therefore, we can logically assume that the above mentioned goals were a cover for attempted regime change in Iran as stated by Netanyahu when he called up Iranians to overthrow the regime.

Your initial assumption is baseless, therefore your conclusion as well.
Do explain why you think Israel lacks the means to fulfill the 2 mentioned tasks.

But this also doesn't make sense as you cannot overthrow the regime without taking out its leader which was strictly forbidden by the Trump administration before the "war" started.

If overthrowing the regime is impossible because of something that happened prior, why did Israel start this operation?

The only other goal Israel might have had was to drag the US and Iran into open war, but this was also unlikely to happen, which we can conclude from both current behavior from both US and Iran, and also the last time they were close to conflict after the assassination of Soleimani when both sides were primarily looking for exit strategies.

Why would Israel do that?
And if as you say, Israel cannot defeat Iran's nuclear and conventional capabilities, it cannot cause regime change, and cannot drag the US into a war - what COULD it do?

Overall, in my opinion, this war's primary theater of operations was information/media space, with both sides flooding the airwaves with significant exaggerations of their successes followed by downplaying of the opponents ones

So Israel started a war, just so it could lie about the war?

 

[Karl Franz]

Many wars end with an "off ramp", which involves a lot of theatrics.
All parties involved had a significant interesting in making the war as short as possible, whether for military (Iran), political (USA) or economical (Israel) reasons.

Quite a bit of theatrics indeed.

Nobody believes the strike on Fordow was sufficient. Because it was really not the main feature of the war. The IDF says 9 nuclear facilities were hit. What classifies something as a nuclear site - I don't know. I assume it's the big ones + research, weaponization, manufacturing, and other facilities that don't necessarily require a large independent site.
We know of at least 4 main sites that were hit hard - Isfahan, Arak, Natanz, and Fordow.
Sites in Tehran and other cities were also reportedly hit.

Nuclear programs are actually very simple. The weaponization process was complete in what's closing in on a century.
But the long process of enrichment cannot be skipped.
Iran has 2 main enrichment sites - Natanz and Fordow. Natanz was operational for a long time with old rudimentary centrifuges.
Fordow is a newer site and was equipped with modern centrifuges.
That is why despite hitting many more sites - they received all the media attention. Fordow in particular because it was the most well defended one.

So no, it wasn't just a couple bombs. Because it wasn't just Fordow. It was a well thought out campaign executed over a span of almost 2 weeks.
The US got to do the closing ceremony largely for theatrical purposes, although it did make the job easier.

As for why it wasn't struck before - it's mostly political.
On Israel's side, Netanyahu is a coward. Plain and simple. He chickened out of every opportunity to strike when the military apparatus recommended one.

On the US's side, for obvious reasons another war in the middle east, even if only a short one, will have negative political consequences. Or at least non-positive ones. Even if it's just for a month.

What happened in the end is a good compromise.
Israel does 90% of the work but gets assurances that higher risk operations will get de-risked with US assistance.
The US can appear for just a brief moment for the 10%, take credit, and get a political boost for solving a military issue without entering a war. Most of its contribution is defensive which does not have negative political connotations.

There's also the difference between Trump and Biden/Obama.
All 3 are logically averse to military action. They all want peace and calm, and be portrayed as peacemakers if war does start.
But Trump has a more proactive approach that does not rule out limited military action.
He reduced involvement in Ukraine in 2025, but fought for many years to make Europe more independent (from Russian energy) and better armed in the lead-up to the 2022 war in Ukraine.
He is now similarly pushing for massive increases in defense spending within NATO.
These are things Obama and Biden didn't do. They preferred diplomacy and trade with adversaries to deter hostility, but also failed to respond when adversaries became more hostile and aggressive.
Also all 3 would rather kick the can down the road if they can. But Trump's more proactive and less limited approach allows him to do that sometimes with fewer negative consequences.

I understand that there are more sites targeted however my point stands. If in 2025 it takes twelve day campaign (and that's assuming that nuclear or nuclear related facilities were hit every day), in 2020 would it have taken eight? or maybe less? how long would it have taken when the deal was being made by the Obama administration, four? We are of course working on a presumption that an Israeli intelligence was correct and that Iran was actively developing these sites (expanding existing ones, building new ones).

I am still of the opinion that the US would go for a bombing campaign if its intelligence believed that the damage done through bombing would be sufficient to seriously damage Iran nuclear program and not just delay it for several months.

Your initial assumption is baseless, therefore your conclusion as well.
Do explain why you think Israel lacks the means to fulfill the 2 mentioned tasks.

Because Israel just started the war stating those goals, then a week in called the US for help, then ten days in asked for a cease fire through both US and Gulf states without achieving any of its objectives. I assume that Israeli leadership has judged its capabilities inefficient to complete the objectives and was needlessly suffering damage form Iran's return fire.

I'm assuming you are claiming that Israel has capabilities to achieve these objectives and that may be truth, however the burden of proof is on you since the events we just witnessed contradict your claim.

If overthrowing the regime is impossible because of something that happened prior, why did Israel start this operation?

Why would Israel do that?
And if as you say, Israel cannot defeat Iran's nuclear and conventional capabilities, it cannot cause regime change, and cannot drag the US into a war - what COULD it do?

So Israel started a war, just so it could lie about the war?

That's my whole point. Israel started this war already doomed to fail, there were no reasonable chances of them achieving any of the stated goals as mentioned before.

Why did they do it, I don't know. Perhaps this is their last best chance.

Through its war in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria Israel has not only used up whatever political capital, sympathies, (call it what you will) it had, it has seriously damaged its overall standing in its key allies in the West, to the point where it might be decades till we have a US president that is even remotely close to Trump in his pro Israeli policy, while some European countries already have their relationship with Israel as an election topic.

Perhaps they have decided it was now or never, perhaps they calculated any damage is better than no damage, who knows. However we can say with some certainty that they are coming out of this war if not worse then certainly not better than before.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I understand that there are more sites targeted however my point stands. If in 2025 it takes twelve day campaign (and that's assuming that nuclear or nuclear related facilities were hit every day), in 2020 would it have taken eight? or maybe less? how long would it have taken when the deal was being made by the Obama administration, four? We are of course working on a presumption that an Israeli intelligence was correct and that Iran was actively developing these sites (expanding existing ones, building new ones).

Yes, it would have taken less. At the cost, of course, of inflicting less total damage and setting the program back by months instead of years.

I am still of the opinion that the US would go for a bombing campaign if its intelligence believed that the damage done through bombing would be sufficient to seriously damage Iran nuclear program and not just delay it for several months

How does it hold when applied to other adversarial nations like North Korea which acquired its nukes in the 2000's?
Until recently, I feared Israel wouldn't attack at all, but now Israel has a track record of attacking all regional adversarial nuclear programs.

Does the US have such track record?

In terms of viability for Israel, remember that Iran had a massive array of proxies until 2023, that could invade from multiple locations and fire thousands of missiles per day at Israel, with whom Israel would have to deal before tending to Iran. They were a proper deterrent. The October 7th attack that led to the collapse of Iran's proxies, provided a unique opportunity to make it a clean, precise and unburdened campaign against Iran's military and nuclear capabilities.

Because Israel just started the war stating those goals, then a week in called the US for help, then ten days in asked for a cease fire through both US and Gulf states without achieving any of its objectives.

This only raises more questions:

1. Why did Israel start a war it couldn't finish?
2. What was it doing for a whole week before asking the US's help?
3. Why did it not ask for help BEFORE the war?
4. Why do you think Israel called for a ceasefire and not the US?
5. Why do you think none of its goals were achieved?

I assume that Israeli leadership has judged its capabilities inefficient to complete the objectives and was needlessly suffering damage form Iran's return fire.

In that case the usual course of action is to NOT start a war.

I'm assuming you are claiming that Israel has capabilities to achieve these objectives and that may be truth, however the burden of proof is on you since the events we just witnessed contradict your claim.

I have literally posted footage in this thread, proving Israel has successfully targeted Iranian conventional and nuclear capabilities. And you also said you have quietly followed throughout the war, so you must have seen it.

Click on the Media tab and look through the footage. They haven't uploaded much since the ceasefire so it should be easy.

https://x.com/IAFsite

https://x.com/IDF

It's also odd you say the events contradict my claim because we have witnessed the systematic destruction of much of Iran's missile arsenal and launch capability, destruction of Iran's air defenses, destruction of critical MIC components (production of missiles, electronics, air defenses etc etc), incredibly high interception rates of MRBMs which are universally considered very difficult targets, consensus among relevant agencies about extensive damage to numerous nuclear sites.

That's my whole point. Israel started this war already doomed to fail, there were no reasonable chances of them achieving any of the stated goals as mentioned before.

Then why did they start it?

Why did they do it, I don't know. Perhaps this is their last best chance.

So you make a claim, and when asked about it, you just say you don't know?
How do you expect your claim to be taken seriously then, if you don't even believe it?

Through its war in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria Israel has not only used up whatever political capital, sympathies, (call it what you will) it had, it has seriously damaged its overall standing in its key allies in the West, to the point where it might be decades till we have a US president that is even remotely close to Trump in his pro Israeli policy, while some European countries already have their relationship with Israel as an election topic.

I disagree, because military response to threats is not yet lost on western society and even during Biden's term it sought to assist Ukraine for example against the same threats.
But even if I agree with you, what does it have to do with your case?

Perhaps they have decided it was now or never, perhaps they calculated any damage is better than no damage, who knows. However we can say with some certainty that they are coming out of this war if not worse then certainly not better than before.

How does "now or never" reconcile with your assumption that Israel knowingly entered an impossible war with predetermined defeat?


I have no problem debating an opinion that's opposite to mine, but you have to admit you came in with a half baked argument at best, unable to reason through it, start to finish.

 

[Karl Franz]

Yes, it would have taken less. At the cost, of course, of inflicting less total damage and setting the program back by months instead of years.

So bombing now when Iran has had a decade or so to prepare and better defend/conceal their sites is going to be more effective as opposed to before with less targets, less defenses and so on, a sound logic.

How does it hold when applied to other adversarial nations like North Korea which acquired its nukes in the 2000's?
Until recently, I feared Israel wouldn't attack at all, but now Israel has a track record of attacking all regional adversarial nuclear programs.

Does the US have such track record?

In terms of viability for Israel, remember that Iran had a massive array of proxies until 2023, that could invade from multiple locations and fire thousands of missiles per day at Israel, with whom Israel would have to deal before tending to Iran. They were a proper deterrent. The October 7th attack that led to the collapse of Iran's proxies, provided a unique opportunity to make it a clean, precise and unburdened campaign against Iran's military and nuclear capabilities.

We are discussing a certain conflict between certain nations under certain conditions. But for arguments sake, perhaps the reason United States didn't break truce between them and North Korea is that one of the conflict's parties was China.

This only raises more questions:

1. Why did Israel start a war it couldn't finish?
2. What was it doing for a whole week before asking the US's help?
3. Why did it not ask for help BEFORE the war?
4. Why do you think Israel called for a ceasefire and not the US?
5. Why do you think none of its goals were achieved?

In that case the usual course of action is to NOT start a war.

Because Israel would be the first country ever to start a war that they couldn't win. The first country ever to miscalculate its capabilities and those of its adversary and then realize once the shooting starts that things are not going according to plan. The first country ever that has asked for support from allies during the war that wasn't going well, or the first country to offer truce.

Unless you believe Israel is infallible at which point this becomes a theological debate.

I have literally posted footage in this thread, proving Israel has successfully targeted Iranian conventional and nuclear capabilities. And you also said you have quietly followed throughout the war, so you must have seen it.

Click on the Media tab and look through the footage. They haven't uploaded much since the ceasefire so it should be easy.
https://x.com/IAFsite https://x.com/IDF
It's also odd you say the events contradict my claim because we have witnessed the systematic destruction of much of Iran's missile arsenal and launch capability, destruction of Iran's air defenses, destruction of critical MIC components (production of missiles, electronics, air defenses etc etc), incredibly high interception rates of MRBMs which are universally considered very difficult targets, consensus among relevant agencies about extensive damage to numerous nuclear sites.

Not even Israeli intelligence agrees with your statement, both its and the US intelligence have unequivocally stated that Iran retains its strike capabilities. The war we just witnessed disproves your claims also, if Iranians capabilities were truly degraded we would have seen few to no launches at all, which was not the case.

Seeing a footage of destroyed equipment and assuming a side in a conflict has lost all capabilities related to the said equipment is not a sound logic. I have seen footage of Ukraine both shutting down and destroying Russian aircraft on runways, does that mean that Russia doesn't operate a robust air force? I have seen thousands of Russian strikes on Ukrainian defense and defense related facilities, does that mean that the Ukrainians no longer operate a defense industry?

Then why did they start it?

So you make a claim, and when asked about it, you just say you don't know?
How do you expect your claim to be taken seriously then, if you don't even believe it?

What claim? You asked the question why and I gave you a plausible answer.

I disagree, because military response to threats is not yet lost on western society and even during Biden's term it sought to assist Ukraine for example against the same threats.
But even if I agree with you, what does it have to do with your case?

What does the US or Europe's pro Israeli stance have to do with it? This is your question? So all the support Israel has received, all the weapons, the financing, and even physical protection have no bearing on Israel's ability to wage war?

How does "now or never" reconcile with your assumption that Israel knowingly entered an impossible war with predetermined defeat?


I have no problem debating an opinion that's opposite to mine, but you have to admit you came in with a half baked argument at best, unable to reason through it, start to finish.

Me neither, although I do find that people tend to resort to personal insults when they have no more sound arguments.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

So bombing now when Iran has had a decade or so to prepare and better defend/conceal their sites is going to be more effective as opposed to before with less targets, less defenses and so on, a sound logic.

I believe Israel should have struck a long time ago and that is one of the reasons, among many, for my opposition to Netanyahu and his coalition. They believe in reactive policy, I believe in proactive policy.
But I cannot deny the difference in circumstances, with a more potent Iranian deterrent and a more hostile American leadership.

There are many historical precedents for this. For example, if a war will occur between US-China around 2030 over Taiwan, then it would certainly be a valid point to make that taking action in 2030 would be more destructive than now in 2025 or earlier in 2020 or 2015 when China was much weaker.
While Israel objected JCPOA specifically, it is not generally averse to agreements and diplomacy. In fact it traded every war with Arab nations for a piece of paper saying there's now peace, and everything was conducted diplomatically since. Israel similarly is not averse to an agreement between the US-Iran. But the negotiations went for 2 months before reaching a stalemate.

Now negotiations seem to be getting back on track, with previous points of contention practically gone now.
I don't know why Israel has such a reputation for militancy when it is far more receptive to diplomacy.

We are discussing a certain conflict between certain nations under certain conditions. But for arguments sake, perhaps the reason United States didn't break truce between them and North Korea is that one of the conflict's parties was China.

Ok so you do recognize that deterrence and involvement by other parties can play a factor and that it's not just a matter of "earlier is better". As China is North Korea's guardian, so has Iran set up an array of proxies across the region - in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Palestinian territories, Lebanon, and more. All with the intent and capability to attack Israel if Israel attacked Iran's nuclear program.

Because Israel would be the first country ever to start a war that they couldn't win. The first country ever to miscalculate its capabilities and those of its adversary and then realize once the shooting starts that things are not going according to plan. The first country ever that has asked for support from allies during the war that wasn't going well, or the first country to offer truce.

Unless you believe Israel is infallible at which point this becomes a theological debate.

It certainly wouldn't be the first, but what you are suggesting is a very odd, frankly irreconcilable mix of competence and incompetence.
We have on one hand Israel's competence allowing it to:

1. Neutralize Hezbollah's entire upper C2 with just 1 attack.
2. Force it into a humiliating ceasefire without even making a significant ground maneuver.
3. Emerge from a war with Hezbollah and Iran with "only" dozens of fatalities, despite projections of tens of thousands.
4. Raid and demolish a Syrian UGF with 0 casualties.
5. Achieve practically unheard of intelligence penetration into Iran.
6. Intercept/defeat ~90% of Iran's MRBM strikes and nearly 100% of drones.
7. Establish aerial superiority over much of Iran.
8. Hunt TELs and SAMs with drones flying freely over major cities and UGFs.
9. Deploy Mossad teams to destroy sensitive equipment in Iranian bases and reportedly to nuclear facilities.
10. Paralyze Iran's nuclear program for years.
11. Eliminate IRGC's senior leadership.
12. Pretty much destroy Iran's MIC.
13. All while losing only a couple drones.

Only fuel tanks and JDAMs. No AAMs, no cruise missiles. Just JDAMs. That's how you can tell the IAF thoroughly dominated Iranian airspace.


Mossad operating in Iran

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1933454339395260848

Iran is hollowed out. It can no longer pose any conventional threat to Israel. It cannot rush to a nuclear bomb for the forseeable future. Israel went practically unscathed. Yet Israel is one of the smallest, least populated nations in the entire region.
That takes buckets of competence.

And yet, you claim an incompetence as basic as underestimating a foe. I don't think any nation has ever demonstrated an intelligence penetration as thorough as Israel has in Iran, yet in all that, Iran's "true capabilities" went missed.
How do you reconcile that?

Not even Israeli intelligence agrees with your statement, both its and the US intelligence have unequivocally stated that Iran retains its strike capabilities.

Of course it does. Just much degraded.

The war we just witnessed disproves your claims also, if Iranians capabilities were truly degraded we would have seen few to no launches at all, which was not the case.

Here's my data. Can you show me yours?

Seeing a footage of destroyed equipment and assuming a side in a conflict has lost all capabilities related to the said equipment is not a sound logic. I have seen footage of Ukraine both shutting down and destroying Russian aircraft on runways, does that mean that Russia doesn't operate a robust air force?

Russia has resorted to using Tu-160 which are more expensive and complex, few in number, and assumed to have been intentionally spared as they are Russia's nuclear deterrent. Much of Russia's strategic aviation has indeed been dismantled and forced to work in a much less optimal mode.
However, Russia-Ukraine is not comparable to Israel-Iran.
While Russia-Ukraine are more or less each other's peers, Israel has a significant qualitative military advantage over Iran, while Iran attempted to coutner this with an asymmetrical force. That is why neither Russia nor Ukraine have so far been able to conduct strikes comprehensively and with impunity. Most munitions launched by either side, end up not reaching their targets.

What claim? You asked the question why and I gave you a plausible answer.

Your main claim is that this war was mostly theatrical, Israel failed to achieve anything, while Iran inflicted serious damage upon Israel.
That claim.

Me neither, although I do find that people tend to resort to personal insults when they have no more sound arguments.

Are you suggesting I personally insulted you? Really? That's childish. Telling you that your argument is inconsistent and "half baked" is not a personal insult.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

We can see now why the MOPs created the line and corner patterns. They match exactly the ventilation shaft locations.
This demonstrates MOP's excellent precision.
A while ago I noted the inherent vulnerability of UGFs via ventilation shafts. They are exploitable not only to bombs, but also to above-ground sabotage.


Logical explanation for why there are 3 holes instead of one, when each ventilation system converges into 1 main shaft only.

The internal detonations generated upward gas pressure through the main shaft, which then dispersed through parallel ducting. This force blew off the shaft covers, causing fragments of concrete to be ejected at high pressure onto the surface of the mountain ridge.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1938266699511566481

 

[nesss01]

would the detonations have been powerful enough to breach any massive blast doors between sections of fordow?

 

[Karl Franz]

believe Israel should have struck a long time ago and that is one of the reasons, among many, for my opposition to Netanyahu and his coalition. They believe in reactive policy, I believe in proactive policy.
But I cannot deny the difference in circumstances, with a more potent Iranian deterrent and a more hostile American leadership.

Ok, I guess we agree that earlier bombing campaign would have been more effective, which again brings the question of why wasn't it done before, if not in Obama's term then in Trump's first term, if it was so easy today it would have been a walk in the park back then.

There are many historical precedents for this. For example, if a war will occur between US-China around 2030 over Taiwan, then it would certainly be a valid point to make that taking action in 2030 would be more destructive than now in 2025 or earlier in 2020 or 2015 when China was much weaker.

So a historical precedent is a fictional war in the future, funny how history works.

While Israel objected JCPOA specifically, it is not generally averse to agreements and diplomacy. In fact it traded every war with Arab nations for a piece of paper saying there's now peace, and everything was conducted diplomatically since. Israel similarly is not averse to an agreement between the US-Iran. But the negotiations went for 2 months before reaching a stalemate.

Now negotiations seem to be getting back on track, with previous points of contention practically gone now.
I don't know why Israel has such a reputation for militancy when it is far more receptive to diplomacy.

You're kidding, right? In how many wars was Israel involved just in this century?

Ok so you do recognize that deterrence and involvement by other parties can play a factor and that it's not just a matter of "earlier is better". As China is North Korea's guardian, so has Iran set up an array of proxies across the region - in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Palestinian territories, Lebanon, and more. All with the intent and capability to attack Israel if Israel attacked Iran's nuclear program.

What? How did you get that connection? North Korea and China are states that were in a war with the United States, they signed a cease fire but not a peace treaty, if the United States attacked either of them they would be breaking the truce and de jure returning to the state of war with both of them.

How does this situation correlate to Iran, Israel has been fighting on again off again wars with Hamas and Hezbollah for years without an Iranian intervention.

t certainly wouldn't be the first, but what you are suggesting is a very odd, frankly irreconcilable mix of competence and incompetence.
We have on one hand Israel's competence allowing it to:

1. Neutralize Hezbollah's entire upper C2 with just 1 attack.
2. Force it into a humiliating ceasefire without even making a significant ground maneuver.
3. Emerge from a war with Hezbollah and Iran with "only" dozens of fatalities, despite projections of tens of thousands.
4. Raid and demolish a Syrian UGF with 0 casualties.
5. Achieve practically unheard of intelligence penetration into Iran.
6. Intercept/defeat ~90% of Iran's MRBM strikes and nearly 100% of drones.
7. Establish aerial superiority over much of Iran.
8. Hunt TELs and SAMs with drones flying freely over major cities and UGFs.
9. Deploy Mossad teams to destroy sensitive equipment in Iranian bases and reportedly to nuclear facilities.
10. Paralyze Iran's nuclear program for years.
11. Eliminate IRGC's senior leadership.
12. Pretty much destroy Iran's MIC.
13. All while losing only a couple drones.

So many claims, most of them of course completely unsubstantiated, but lets go through them.

1. You are talking about the pager attack, I don't quite remember but i think it was around 1200 explosive pagers, majority of the victims were of course civilians (there is a name we use for an attack used mainly on civilian targets causing panic and shock throughout country whether its appropriate here I'll let you decide).

2. "without even making a significant ground maneuver", you mean attempting to create a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, encountering heavy resistance which was not expected, realizing it would take heavy casualties to secure it and instead agreeing to cease fire.

3. Against strange bragging rights Iranian casualties are in the hundreds per last reports I have seen and on both sides vast majority of the loses were civilians, killing more of the enemies civilians is indeed a strange thing to brag about, but you don't have to go to Iran, you can look at Gaza, we have lost count how many civilians were killed there.

4. Demolishing Syrian facilities with zero casualties is indeed impressive until you realize nobody was defending those facilities. The only way for casualties to occur is for soldiers to accidently trip and set off a grenade or some kind of friendly fire incident.

The rest of the claims we can divide into wishful thinking such as 90 percent interception rate (I believe Houthis were penetrating Israeli air defenses with just a couple of missiles), destruction of the arms industry and a nuclear program again completely unsubstantiated, and the more realistic ones such as intelligence penetration which was indeed significant and air superiority which was indeed achieved.

Iran is hollowed out. It can no longer pose any conventional threat to Israel. It cannot rush to a nuclear bomb for the forseeable future. Israel went practically unscathed. Yet Israel is one of the smallest, least populated nations in the entire region.
That takes buckets of competence.

And yet, you claim an incompetence as basic as underestimating a foe. I don't think any nation has ever demonstrated an intelligence penetration as thorough as Israel has in Iran, yet in all that, Iran's "true capabilities" went missed.
How do you reconcile that?

Why did Israel stop and ask for cease fire? If we take your claim at face value and Israel continued this operation for a month or two there would be nothing left of Iran. Why just couple of years, why not continue and take Iranian threat of the table for decades?

Why did the Trump administration need to give concessions to Iranians to accept the cease fire by lifting some restrictions on their oil exports, according to you only way Iran could have suffered more damage was if an asteroid hit them and they need to be buttered up to accept the cease fire?

Your main claim is that this war was mostly theatrical, Israel failed to achieve anything, while Iran inflicted serious damage upon Israel.
That claim.

You are so blinded by bias that you are now inventing claims I supposedly made. What I said, and you can go back and read it, was that both sides were exaggerating the damage they were doing. Never have I claimed that Israel was suffering more or even substantial damage, and if you ask me directly which country suffered more physical damage I would have of course answered Iran. There are of course other loses we could talk about but its still too early and dust needs to settle a bit before we get into that kind of analysis.

Are you suggesting I personally insulted you? Really? That's childish. Telling you that your argument is inconsistent and "half baked" is not a personal insult.

You're claiming not to have insulted me while in the same sentence calling me a child. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Big_Zucchini]

would the detonations have been powerful enough to breach any massive blast doors between sections of fordow?

I don't think anyone here is qualified enough to answer that.
We do not know if Iran installed blast doors there. If they did, we don't know their capabilities.
We do know there was precise intel on the tunnel layout, and the strikes focused on one end of the main hall (centrifuges).

Centrifuges themselves don't require a bomb to destroy. From what I've read so far, it seems they are a sensitive piece of equipment that requires a very careful and controlled shutdown sequence due to their extreme spin frequency.
Simply shutting off their electricity could destroy them.
That is what was allegedly done a long time ago with Stuxnet.

Ok, I guess we agree that earlier bombing campaign would have been more effective, which again brings the question of why wasn't it done before, if not in Obama's term then in Trump's first term, if it was so easy today it would have been a walk in the park back then.

Why doesn't the US attack China now? Or attack Russia in 2022? Could really turn this into a 1 month war instead of the 3+ years it is now.
The reason is casus belli. Another is deterrent. Both are nuclear nations, and Iran had a significant conventional capability before October 7th 2023, pointed at Israel from 7 directions, including ground invasion from 2-3 of those.
You cannot just attack a nation without a casus belli. It is important not only for gathering international support, but also for domestic support which for some nations is about as crucial, if not more, than the military aspect.
Russia had to build up for years the "nazi Ukraine" narrative.
China had been talking about a unified China for decades.
Israel achieved its casus belli properly only after October 7th 2023.
Otherwise it would risk entering the deadliest war in its history with no foreign support.

So a historical precedent is a fictional war in the future, funny how history works.

I used an example that I thought you would find familiar. I guess it wasn't.
Another example would be a Russian invasion into Ukraine in 2014 instead of 2022. Would have been so much easier. But one could wonder why not do it back in 1991.

You can see that even after so much waiting, Israel was able to crush every forecast and emerge from this war with very little homefront damage, while crushing Iran's conventional and nuclear capabilities, and its proxies.
In one of the IDF's early briefings about the campaign in Iran, they said Iran planned a massive expansion of missile production capability, to quickly multiply its missile stocks within a few years.
Regardless of validity, this indicates Israel did not see Iran as an insurmountable challenge yet.
Iran would realistically require tens of thousands of MRBMs and thousands of TELs to do lasting and meaningful strategic damage to Israel that would be worthwhile from Iran's perspective.

You're kidding, right? In how many wars was Israel involved just in this century?

Of its own initiative? 0.

What? How did you get that connection? North Korea and China are states that were in a war with the United States, they signed a cease fire but not a peace treaty, if the United States attacked either of them they would be breaking the truce and de jure returning to the state of war with both of them.

How does this situation correlate to Iran, Israel has been fighting on again off again wars with Hamas and Hezbollah for years without an Iranian intervention.

So your argument is a legal one now?
Israel and Iran have been in a state of armed conflict for decades through proxies, which has been an accepted norm for even longer than that.
Every confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah is also one with Iran, via proxy.
Every confrontation with the Houthis and Iraqi PMF and Assad's Syria, were also that.
But if it is direct confrontation that you seek then look no further than April 2024, when Iran fired >350 missiles and drones at Israel, from Iran proper.
Not in response to an Israeli attack on Iran, but against an Iranian proxy in Syria.

You are talking about the pager attack, I don't quite remember but i think it was around 1200 explosive pagers, majority of the victims were of course civilians

Then I can confirm you don't remember.

there is a name we use for an attack used mainly on civilian targets causing panic and shock throughout country whether its appropriate here I'll let you decide

What's that name?

without even making a significant ground maneuver", you mean attempting to create a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, encountering heavy resistance which was not expected, realizing it would take heavy casualties to secure it and instead agreeing to cease fire.

So you once again shifted the argument to historical revisionism?

Against strange bragging rights Iranian casualties are in the hundreds per last reports I have seen and on both sides vast majority of the loses were civilians, killing more of the enemies civilians is indeed a strange thing to brag about, but you don't have to go to Iran, you can look at Gaza, we have lost count how many civilians were killed there.

And in Israel "only" 28 were killed by Iran.
Solid ratio and big L for Iran.

Demolishing Syrian facilities with zero casualties is indeed impressive until you realize nobody was defending those facilities. The only way for casualties to occur is for soldiers to accidently trip and set off a grenade or some kind of friendly fire incident.

Clearing the facility of hostiles is a major show of competence for both the ground team and aerial team providing CAS.

Why did Israel stop and ask for cease fire?

It achieved its goals. Between non-peer adversaries, there is usually a point where returns are diminishing. Yet expenses grow or remain unchanged.
At that point it's usually best to stop.
With Iran's senior leadership dead, air defenses, MIC, and nuclear program destroyed or paralyzed, remaining targets are decreasingly strategically valuable.

If we take your claim at face value and Israel continued this operation for a month or two there would be nothing left of Iran

Leaving nothing of Iran is not a war objective. To the contrary. Many economical assets were left intact to avoid antagonizing the general Iranian population should they choose to initiate an uprising in the future. Israel's relationship with a post-revolution Iran are strategically important.

The rest of the claims we can divide into wishful thinking such as 90 percent interception rate

To the contrary. Every claim or argument you challenged, I responded to with facts, numbers, statistics, or footage.
You have yet to present any shred of evidence to any of your claims.

Why did the Trump administration need to give concessions to Iranians to accept the cease fire by lifting some restrictions on their oil exports

What restrictions on oil exports were lifted?

You are so blinded by bias that you are now inventing claims I supposedly made. What I said, and you can go back and read it, was that both sides were exaggerating the damage they were doing. Never have I claimed that Israel was suffering more or even substantial damage, and if you ask me directly which country suffered more physical damage I would have of course answered Iran. There are of course other loses we could talk about but its still too early and dust needs to settle a bit before we get into that kind of analysis

You said Israel entered a predetermined, lost war, that all its military objectives were impossible to achieve, and that Iran inflicted serious damage upon Israel.

You're claiming not to have insulted me while in the same sentence calling me a child. Ironic, isn't it?

If you wanna be offended, go ahead. I can't make your decisions for you.

 

[seaspear]

I don't believe Israel has set out what it expects to have achieved from this bombing campaign ,it has not claimed to have destroyed all of Iran's ballistic missile storage or production capability ,even nuclear development sites whilst damaged above ground cannot be verified for below ground with absolute certainty , if these were the goals then the campaign stopped to soon certainly making it clear the resumption of production would lead to further hostilities should of been made clear to the Iranian leadership

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I don't believe Israel has set out what it expects to have achieved from this bombing campaign ,it has not claimed to have destroyed all of Iran's ballistic missile storage or production capability

Because it has also not claimed to have set that as an objective.
Here's a translated list of objectives, in order of presentation:

1. Significantly damage Iran's nuclear program.
2. Significantly damage Iran's missile program.
3. Damage the "Axis of Resistance".
4. Create conditions for long term neutralization of Iran's nuclear program via political means.

If you don't believe me you can auto-translate this:

מטרות המלחמה שאושרו בקבינט: "סיום המערכה באמצעים מדיניים" | חדשות 13

ערב היציאה למבצע באיראן אושרו בקבינט 4 מטרות: פגיעה משמעותית בתוכנית הגרעין, פגיעה משמעותית בתוכנית הטילים, פגיעה בציר השיעי - ויצירת תנאים לסיכול ארוך טווח של תוכנית הגרעין ותוכנית הטילים באמצעים מדיניים. בכירים בישראל ששוחחו עם הממשל: "טראמפ קרוב להוראה על תקיפה"

13tv.co.il

The difference between "significantly damage Iran's missile program" and "destroyed all of Iran's ballistic missile production capability", is that absolutists don't usually succeed as officers, let alone make it into senior, decision making positions.

The 4th objective should definitely sound odd to absolutists who think every military action, particularly Israeli, should be measured in a binary success/failure, and who mistakenly assume Israeli over-militancy.
But it is in fact a recurring theme in Israeli war planning that military action should be a tool for a political solution, and not the other way around.

even nuclear development sites whilst damaged above ground cannot be verified for below ground with absolute certainty , if these were the goals then the campaign stopped to soon certainly making it clear the resumption of production would lead to further hostilities should of been made clear to the Iranian leadership

Can you please explain to me the physics of underground damage being more apparent on satellite imagery by simply waiting?
Can you also explain to me how is waiting while in war is different from waiting while not in war?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Iran nuclear: Foreign minister admits serious damage to sites

Abbas Araghchi also says there are no plans to resume nuclear talks with the US.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Iran's foreign minister has admitted that "excessive and serious" damage was done to the country's nuclear sites in the recent US and Israeli bombings.

Abbas Araghchi told a state broadcaster on Thursday evening that an assessment of the damage is being carried out by the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran.

But, just hours earlier, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the strikes did not disrupt the country's nuclear programme. Khamenei was responding to US President Donald Trump's assertion that the bombs had "totally obliterated" three nuclear sites. Khamenei said the US attacks had failed to "accomplish anything significant".

The supreme leader, who has been in hiding since the war with Israel began on 13 June, insisted that Trump had "exaggerated" the impact of the bombs, and declared victory over the US and Israel.

But Araghchi's remarks create a different impression."

...

Interesting, perhaps there's a split between the elected government and Supreme Leader, even if it's a small one.