Iran Launches "Large Scale Attack" on Israel (?) (11 Viewers)

[KarmaPolice]

They'd be deemed acts of terrorism. Let's just be honest about it.

I've always demarcated this by the target. These were military targets = not terrorism. USS Cole = not terrorism (act of war). Sept. 11th = terrorism. Etc., etc.

I think that is a great start, but IMO part of the equation has to be the how/when. Maybe it doesn't reach the level of terrorism, but certainly people should question when a civilian building is hit what the motivations were and was that absolutely the only time and place it could be done?

You bring up targets, maybe you didn't find these acts to qualify as terrorism. What about if those targets were refugee camps? Hospitals? If not terrorism again, we at least should be able to honestly discuss motives when most of the people being killed are women and children in the process.

 

[Sand]

They'd be deemed acts of terrorism. Let's just be honest about it.

I've always demarcated this by the target. These were military targets = not terrorism. USS Cole = not terrorism (act of war). Sept. 11th = terrorism. Etc., etc.

I think that is a great start, but IMO part of the equation has to be the how/when. Maybe it doesn't reach the level of terrorism, but certainly people should question when a civilian building is hit what the motivations were and was that absolutely the only time and place it could be done?

You bring up targets, maybe you didn't find these acts to qualify as terrorism. What about if those targets were refugee camps? Hospitals? If not terrorism again, we at least should be able to honestly discuss motives when most of the people being killed are women and children in the process.

Good points on collateral damage. Certainly refugee camps and hospitals are civilian. Of course, the frustrating part of that is that Hamas/Hezbollah have the wonderful habit of putting military infrastructure inside hospitals and schools. Dead kids are great publicity.

 

[FarFromHome]

My GF is Iranian, I understand why but it just seems odd to see her texting me that she hopes Israel doesn't let up. Unsurprising the Iranian gov't is loathed by much of the people.

This is true. A lot of the citizens there are sick and tired of how the corrupt government runs things. The people in power there often skim off of the top to where a small minority live like royalty while a big majority have to deal with lots of turmoil and oppression. For example, Iran is a giant oil producer. Much of their electricity comes from gasoline and oil—which shouldn’t be an issue there. However, because so many of the people in charge embezzled money for themselves—they put very little into upgrading their refineries (to produce high quality gasoline), they didn’t invest in improving the power grid, they didn’t invest in making more electrical power stations—and a big portion of people have to deal with frequent power outages in big cities like Tehran. The people there are kind, tough, and strong. They have had to deal with embargo’s that were brought upon the country because of their corrupt government, I could totally see why a large amount of them could be quietly rooting for a situation where their government gets uprooted.

With that said, I just don’t understand the timing of things. Iran and the US were speaking and I don’t see how Iran was somehow going to be a bigger threat this week, next week more than they were a month ago. I also don’t know if I agree with Israel’s habit of attacking other countries in areas where innocent civilian casualties are guaranteed. Attacking a nuclear site or a military site is one thing. However, coordinating assassinations of leaders through bombing densely populated capital cities is a war crime. They did the same thing when they killed a bunch of hezbollah leaders using pagers that had explosives inside of them. Many of those pagers went off in public areas, homes, stores..etc. I’m certainly not trying to make any political statements—but I do think that these tactics would be deemed as being very inappropriate if they were done by most other countries.

Ya the timing seems interesting. As I try to logically understand the timing I come up with two reasons.

1. I've read that in the past 3 months Iran has increased it's uranium supply by a third. That's a lot. Is that true or just a narrative? Hard to tell.

2. United States admin gave Iran a 60 day deadline and okayed the attack on day 60. Deadlines are deadlines I suppose.

I'm not agreeing or not agreeing in any of the two reasons. Just posting the only two reason I can come up with to answer the why now question.

 

[FarFromHome]

Interesting conversation on what's terrorism or not. I had an old Sergeant Major explain it to me like this. If you formulate something deadly for simply the shock and awe of it that's terrorism. If your formulate something deadly to beat your opponent thats war.

 

[General Malaise]

My GF is Iranian, I understand why but it just seems odd to see her texting me that she hopes Israel doesn't let up. Unsurprising the Iranian gov't is loathed by much of the people.

This is true. A lot of the citizens there are sick and tired of how the corrupt government runs things. The people in power there often skim off of the top to where a small minority live like royalty while a big majority have to deal with lots of turmoil and oppression. For example, Iran is a giant oil producer. Much of their electricity comes from gasoline and oil—which shouldn’t be an issue there. However, because so many of the people in charge embezzled money for themselves—they put very little into upgrading their refineries (to produce high quality gasoline), they didn’t invest in improving the power grid, they didn’t invest in making more electrical power stations—and a big portion of people have to deal with frequent power outages in big cities like Tehran. The people there are kind, tough, and strong. They have had to deal with embargo’s that were brought upon the country because of their corrupt government, I could totally see why a large amount of them could be quietly rooting for a situation where their government gets uprooted.

With that said, I just don’t understand the timing of things. Iran and the US were speaking and I don’t see how Iran was somehow going to be a bigger threat this week, next week more than they were a month ago. I also don’t know if I agree with Israel’s habit of attacking other countries in areas where innocent civilian casualties are guaranteed. Attacking a nuclear site or a military site is one thing. However, coordinating assassinations of leaders through bombing densely populated capital cities is a war crime. They did the same thing when they killed a bunch of hezbollah leaders using pagers that had explosives inside of them. Many of those pagers went off in public areas, homes, stores..etc. I’m certainly not trying to make any political statements—but I do think that these tactics would be deemed as being very inappropriate if they were done by most other countries.

Ya the timing seems interesting. As I try to logically understand the timing I come up with two reasons.

1. I've read that in the past 3 months Iran has increased it's uranium supply by a third. That's a lot. Is that true or just a narrative? Hard to tell.

2. United States admin gave Iran a 60 day deadline and okayed the attack on day 60. Deadlines are deadlines I suppose.

I'm not agreeing or not agreeing in any of the two reasons. Just posting the only two reason I can come up with to answer the why now question.

What kind of uranium has Iran increased by a third?

Can we pause and maybe talk about the difference between uranium, highly enriched uranium and the weapons grade stuff?

We are dangerously encroaching upon "weapons of mass destruction" territory in here where nobody understands what that means, we just nod along because we all hated chemistry 101.

 

[Desert_Power]

Interesting conversation on what's terrorism or not. I had an old Sergeant Major explain it to me like this. If you formulate something deadly for simply the shock and awe of it that's terrorism. If your formulate something deadly to beat your opponent thats war.

Seems like the middle part of that Venn Diagram would have a lot of overlap though. That's the hard part.

 

[FarFromHome]

My GF is Iranian, I understand why but it just seems odd to see her texting me that she hopes Israel doesn't let up. Unsurprising the Iranian gov't is loathed by much of the people.

This is true. A lot of the citizens there are sick and tired of how the corrupt government runs things. The people in power there often skim off of the top to where a small minority live like royalty while a big majority have to deal with lots of turmoil and oppression. For example, Iran is a giant oil producer. Much of their electricity comes from gasoline and oil—which shouldn’t be an issue there. However, because so many of the people in charge embezzled money for themselves—they put very little into upgrading their refineries (to produce high quality gasoline), they didn’t invest in improving the power grid, they didn’t invest in making more electrical power stations—and a big portion of people have to deal with frequent power outages in big cities like Tehran. The people there are kind, tough, and strong. They have had to deal with embargo’s that were brought upon the country because of their corrupt government, I could totally see why a large amount of them could be quietly rooting for a situation where their government gets uprooted.

With that said, I just don’t understand the timing of things. Iran and the US were speaking and I don’t see how Iran was somehow going to be a bigger threat this week, next week more than they were a month ago. I also don’t know if I agree with Israel’s habit of attacking other countries in areas where innocent civilian casualties are guaranteed. Attacking a nuclear site or a military site is one thing. However, coordinating assassinations of leaders through bombing densely populated capital cities is a war crime. They did the same thing when they killed a bunch of hezbollah leaders using pagers that had explosives inside of them. Many of those pagers went off in public areas, homes, stores..etc. I’m certainly not trying to make any political statements—but I do think that these tactics would be deemed as being very inappropriate if they were done by most other countries.

Ya the timing seems interesting. As I try to logically understand the timing I come up with two reasons.

1. I've read that in the past 3 months Iran has increased it's uranium supply by a third. That's a lot. Is that true or just a narrative? Hard to tell.

2. United States admin gave Iran a 60 day deadline and okayed the attack on day 60. Deadlines are deadlines I suppose.

I'm not agreeing or not agreeing in any of the two reasons. Just posting the only two reason I can come up with to answer the why now question.

What kind of uranium has Iran increased by a third?

Can we pause and maybe talk about the difference between uranium, highly enriched uranium and the weapons grade stuff?

We are dangerously encroaching upon "weapons of mass destruction" territory in here where nobody understands what that means, we just nod along because we all hated chemistry 101.

That's a good question. Then the follow up question would be, if it's really bad uranium, like stuff you can get with a buy 1 get one free coupon, how quickly can they enrich it to the dangerous purity we all fear? So much info out there it's hard to know what's accurate. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported Iran has significantly increased its stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% purity in the last three months. What number do they need to reach purity wise? Have no idea.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Interesting conversation on what's terrorism or not. I had an old Sergeant Major explain it to me like this. If you formulate something deadly for simply the shock and awe of it that's terrorism. If your formulate something deadly to beat your opponent thats war.

Seems like the middle part of that Venn Diagram would have a lot of overlap though. That's the hard part.

That was my thought reading his post as well. Another part I have trouble with on all sides of this is trusting the person/administration telling you what their intentions were on that spectrum.

 

[KarmaPolice]

My GF is Iranian, I understand why but it just seems odd to see her texting me that she hopes Israel doesn't let up. Unsurprising the Iranian gov't is loathed by much of the people.

This is true. A lot of the citizens there are sick and tired of how the corrupt government runs things. The people in power there often skim off of the top to where a small minority live like royalty while a big majority have to deal with lots of turmoil and oppression. For example, Iran is a giant oil producer. Much of their electricity comes from gasoline and oil—which shouldn’t be an issue there. However, because so many of the people in charge embezzled money for themselves—they put very little into upgrading their refineries (to produce high quality gasoline), they didn’t invest in improving the power grid, they didn’t invest in making more electrical power stations—and a big portion of people have to deal with frequent power outages in big cities like Tehran. The people there are kind, tough, and strong. They have had to deal with embargo’s that were brought upon the country because of their corrupt government, I could totally see why a large amount of them could be quietly rooting for a situation where their government gets uprooted.

With that said, I just don’t understand the timing of things. Iran and the US were speaking and I don’t see how Iran was somehow going to be a bigger threat this week, next week more than they were a month ago. I also don’t know if I agree with Israel’s habit of attacking other countries in areas where innocent civilian casualties are guaranteed. Attacking a nuclear site or a military site is one thing. However, coordinating assassinations of leaders through bombing densely populated capital cities is a war crime. They did the same thing when they killed a bunch of hezbollah leaders using pagers that had explosives inside of them. Many of those pagers went off in public areas, homes, stores..etc. I’m certainly not trying to make any political statements—but I do think that these tactics would be deemed as being very inappropriate if they were done by most other countries.

Ya the timing seems interesting. As I try to logically understand the timing I come up with two reasons.

1. I've read that in the past 3 months Iran has increased it's uranium supply by a third. That's a lot. Is that true or just a narrative? Hard to tell.

2. United States admin gave Iran a 60 day deadline and okayed the attack on day 60. Deadlines are deadlines I suppose.

I'm not agreeing or not agreeing in any of the two reasons. Just posting the only two reason I can come up with to answer the why now question.

What kind of uranium has Iran increased by a third?

Can we pause and maybe talk about the difference between uranium, highly enriched uranium and the weapons grade stuff?

We are dangerously encroaching upon "weapons of mass destruction" territory in here where nobody understands what that means, we just nod along because we all hated chemistry 101.

That's a good question. Then the follow up question would be, if it's really bad uranium, like stuff you can get with a buy 1 get one free coupon, how quickly can they enrich it to the dangerous purity we all fear? So much info out there it's hard to know what's accurate. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported Iran has significantly increased its stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% purity in the last three months. What number do they need to reach purity wise? Have no idea.

My understanding is 90%

 

[Dezbelief]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/13/middleeast/iran-nuclear-program-explainer-intl-dg

Iran is closer than ever to a nuclear weapon
Iran has significantly ramped up its uranium enrichment program since Donald Trump withdrew from a nuclear agreement in 2018. It started with about 150kg of uranium enriched to 3.6% – which is sufficient for nuclear reactors and a peaceful nuclear program – and now has 50 times its 2018 level

Iran could have enough enriched uranium in two and half days for one nuclear weapon

In 2023, the IAEA said uranium particles enriched to 83.7% purity – close to bomb-grade levels – were found at an Iranian nuclear facility. Its stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% had also grown to 128.3 kilograms, the highest level then documented.



.

 

[FarFromHome]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/13/middleeast/iran-nuclear-program-explainer-intl-dg

Iran is closer than ever to a nuclear weapon
Iran has significantly ramped up its uranium enrichment program since Donald Trump withdrew from a nuclear agreement in 2018. It started with about 150kg of uranium enriched to 3.6% – which is sufficient for nuclear reactors and a peaceful nuclear program – and now has 50 times its 2018 level

Iran could have enough enriched uranium in two and half days for one nuclear weapon

In 2023, the IAEA said uranium particles enriched to 83.7% purity – close to bomb-grade levels – were found at an Iranian nuclear facility. Its stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% had also grown to 128.3 kilograms, the highest level then documented.



.

It's one of those things I wonder how in the world would we know these numbers? Iran hasn't been the most transparent country. Why would they be? Is their end game is to use one? Or is it to just have one which is a huge chess piece. We just don't know. Only thing we know is they just can't have one. Hence the Israel attack. Did Israel attack because they think Iran is close or because it just felt good. The answer is prolly both.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/13/middleeast/iran-nuclear-program-explainer-intl-dg

Iran is closer than ever to a nuclear weapon
Iran has significantly ramped up its uranium enrichment program since Donald Trump withdrew from a nuclear agreement in 2018. It started with about 150kg of uranium enriched to 3.6% – which is sufficient for nuclear reactors and a peaceful nuclear program – and now has 50 times its 2018 level

Iran could have enough enriched uranium in two and half days for one nuclear weapon

In 2023, the IAEA said uranium particles enriched to 83.7% purity – close to bomb-grade levels – were found at an Iranian nuclear facility. Its stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% had also grown to 128.3 kilograms, the highest level then documented.



.

Without an alternate plan to monitor them since. Great work

Bibi has had a boner with bombing Iran for decades. Looks like he finally got his wish.
Damn the consequences.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/13/middleeast/iran-nuclear-program-explainer-intl-dg

Iran is closer than ever to a nuclear weapon
Iran has significantly ramped up its uranium enrichment program since Donald Trump withdrew from a nuclear agreement in 2018. It started with about 150kg of uranium enriched to 3.6% – which is sufficient for nuclear reactors and a peaceful nuclear program – and now has 50 times its 2018 level

Iran could have enough enriched uranium in two and half days for one nuclear weapon

In 2023, the IAEA said uranium particles enriched to 83.7% purity – close to bomb-grade levels – were found at an Iranian nuclear facility. Its stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% had also grown to 128.3 kilograms, the highest level then documented.



.

It's one of those things I wonder how in the world would we know these numbers? Iran hasn't been the most transparent country. Why would they be? Is their end game is to use one? Or is it to just have one which is a huge chess piece. We just don't know. Only thing we know is they just can't have one. Hence the Israel attack. Did Israel attack because they think Iran is close or because it just felt good. The answer is prolly both.

Iran declared the material to the IAEA, and the IAEA, essentially serving as a nuclear accountant, verifies that what Iran declares is correct. The IAEA is a UN body that reports to the Security Council. We know these numbers because the IAEA made them public.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

How does anyone take seriously the Israeli outrage of targeting their nonmilitary areas? Serious question.

 

[FarFromHome]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/13/middleeast/iran-nuclear-program-explainer-intl-dg

Iran is closer than ever to a nuclear weapon
Iran has significantly ramped up its uranium enrichment program since Donald Trump withdrew from a nuclear agreement in 2018. It started with about 150kg of uranium enriched to 3.6% – which is sufficient for nuclear reactors and a peaceful nuclear program – and now has 50 times its 2018 level

Iran could have enough enriched uranium in two and half days for one nuclear weapon

In 2023, the IAEA said uranium particles enriched to 83.7% purity – close to bomb-grade levels – were found at an Iranian nuclear facility. Its stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% had also grown to 128.3 kilograms, the highest level then documented.



.

It's one of those things I wonder how in the world would we know these numbers? Iran hasn't been the most transparent country. Why would they be? Is their end game is to use one? Or is it to just have one which is a huge chess piece. We just don't know. Only thing we know is they just can't have one. Hence the Israel attack. Did Israel attack because they think Iran is close or because it just felt good. The answer is prolly both.

Iran declared the material to the IAEA, and the IAEA, essentially serving as a nuclear accountant, verifies that what Iran declares is correct. The IAEA is a UN body that reports to the Security Council. We know these numbers because the IAEA made them public.

Did they declare via Facebook Messenger? Using sesame Street pie charts showing what they have? I kid. I kid. Ha ha

 

[Sand]

How does anyone take seriously the Israeli outrage of targeting their nonmilitary areas? Serious question.

Are Iranian missiles that accurate? I remember Scuds and those were light lighting off drunk whistlers.

 

[Dezbelief]

How does anyone take seriously the Israeli outrage of targeting their nonmilitary areas? Serious question.

Are Iranian missiles that accurate? I remember Scuds and those were light lighting off drunk whistlers.

Iran supplied missles the Houthis used to attack ships at sea. Russia went to Iran to get educated on drone warfare.

 

[fatness]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/13/middleeast/iran-nuclear-program-explainer-intl-dg
Iran is closer than ever to a nuclear weapon
Iran has significantly ramped up its uranium enrichment program since Donald Trump withdrew from a nuclear agreement in 2018. It started with about 150kg of uranium enriched to 3.6% – which is sufficient for nuclear reactors and a peaceful nuclear program – and now has 50 times its 2018 level

Iran could have enough enriched uranium in two and half days for one nuclear weapon

To be fair, CNN has been saying this periodically for years.

 

[Desert_Power]

How does anyone take seriously the Israeli outrage of targeting their nonmilitary areas? Serious question.

Are Iranian missiles that accurate? I remember Scuds and those were light lighting off drunk whistlers.

They're definitely getting some through. Haven't seen many casualties yet.

 

[Chadstroma]

My GF is Iranian, I understand why but it just seems odd to see her texting me that she hopes Israel doesn't let up. Unsurprising the Iranian gov't is loathed by much of the people.

This is true. A lot of the citizens there are sick and tired of how the corrupt government runs things. The people in power there often skim off of the top to where a small minority live like royalty while a big majority have to deal with lots of turmoil and oppression. For example, Iran is a giant oil producer. Much of their electricity comes from gasoline and oil—which shouldn’t be an issue there. However, because so many of the people in charge embezzled money for themselves—they put very little into upgrading their refineries (to produce high quality gasoline), they didn’t invest in improving the power grid, they didn’t invest in making more electrical power stations—and a big portion of people have to deal with frequent power outages in big cities like Tehran. The people there are kind, tough, and strong. They have had to deal with embargo’s that were brought upon the country because of their corrupt government, I could totally see why a large amount of them could be quietly rooting for a situation where their government gets uprooted.

With that said, I just don’t understand the timing of things. Iran and the US were speaking and I don’t see how Iran was somehow going to be a bigger threat this week, next week more than they were a month ago. I also don’t know if I agree with Israel’s habit of attacking other countries in areas where innocent civilian casualties are guaranteed. Attacking a nuclear site or a military site is one thing. However, coordinating assassinations of leaders through bombing densely populated capital cities is a war crime. They did the same thing when they killed a bunch of hezbollah leaders using pagers that had explosives inside of them. Many of those pagers went off in public areas, homes, stores..etc. I’m certainly not trying to make any political statements—but I do think that these tactics would be deemed as being very inappropriate if they were done by most other countries.

Iran is a wonderful example of what could have been being destroyed by Muslim extremist ideology. It truly would be the regional power in so many ways if not for the Islamic Revolution flourishing as an economic powerhouse. But these Muslim Revolutionaries insist on making the country a cesspool.

 

[Chadstroma]

They'd be deemed acts of terrorism. Let's just be honest about it.

I've always demarcated this by the target. These were military targets = not terrorism. USS Cole = not terrorism (act of war). Sept. 11th = terrorism. Etc., etc.

If a family member of yours was killed by an exploding cell phone while standing in line behind somebody to pay for some groceries, I think you would not qualify that death as a “military death”. If you are conducting a “military action” it needs to be done in a manner that does what it can to reduce innocent civilian casualties. Conducting a military action with no regard to the high possibility of innocent civilian casualties is something that is generally not condoned. If you have a hard time calling it terrorism—coordinating mass assassinations using explosive devices that have a high likelihood of going off in areas where non-military citizens were likely to get injured or killed is absolutely grounds for war crimes.

Thanks to these brave terrorists hiding behind their women and children (and others.... whom they gleefully broadcast casualties in order to win the PR war) it is impossible to conduct a true military operation. When the choice is to take action that regretfully may end in civilian casualties in order to stop attacks targeting civilians then a nation state is compelled to act as a matter of moral obligation. War has always had civilian casualties- the question has always been whether it is the goal to do so or not and how much effort to you exert to avoid it. Hamas, Hezbollah, etc hide behind their women and children. Israeli warfighters stand between these terrorists and their women and children. That and counting the number of Jews in Gaza/West Bank versus the number of Arabs in Israel and then you can easily figure out where evil resides.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

How does anyone take seriously the Israeli outrage of targeting their nonmilitary areas? Serious question.

Are Iranian missiles that accurate? I remember Scuds and those were light lighting off drunk whistlers.

No idea. Also, no idea what that has to do with my question unless you're suggesting Iran isn't targeting nonmilitary areas and their tech just happens to be hitting in those areas. That's being pretty generous towards Iran though.

 

[thecatch]

They'd be deemed acts of terrorism. Let's just be honest about it.

I've always demarcated this by the target. These were military targets = not terrorism. USS Cole = not terrorism (act of war). Sept. 11th = terrorism. Etc., etc.

If a family member of yours was killed by an exploding cell phone while standing in line behind somebody to pay for some groceries, I think you would not qualify that death as a “military death”. If you are conducting a “military action” it needs to be done in a manner that does what it can to reduce innocent civilian casualties. Conducting a military action with no regard to the high possibility of innocent civilian casualties is something that is generally not condoned. If you have a hard time calling it terrorism—coordinating mass assassinations using explosive devices that have a high likelihood of going off in areas where non-military citizens were likely to get injured or killed is absolutely grounds for war crimes.

Thanks to these brave terrorists hiding behind their women and children (and others.... whom they gleefully broadcast casualties in order to win the PR war) it is impossible to conduct a true military operation. When the choice is to take action that regretfully may end in civilian casualties in order to stop attacks targeting civilians then a nation state is compelled to act as a matter of moral obligation. War has always had civilian casualties- the question has always been whether it is the goal to do so or not and how much effort to you exert to avoid it. Hamas, Hezbollah, etc hide behind their women and children. Israeli warfighters stand between these terrorists and their women and children. That and counting the number of Jews in Gaza/West Bank versus the number of Arabs in Israel and then you can easily figure out where evil resides.

Yep. If you put a military base under a hospital, you don't get to cry about war crimes when the hospital is hit. You've made it a military target.

 

[Don't Toews Me]

Video: https://x.com/Archer83Able/status/1933849668787614049

Israeli AH-64 Apache helicopter takes down an Iranian Shahed long-range OWA-UAV.

https://x.com/shashj/status/1933896583331942764

‘One Israeli official estimated that in the first 12 hours of air strikes Israel had “barely destroyed 20% of the nuclear programme”. But Mr Netanyahu is planning at least two solid weeks of strikes, targeting many types of Iranian military assets’

Iran’s nuclear facilities damaged but not destroyed, experts say

David Albright, who has studied Iran’s nuclear program for decades, said the initial round of Israeli strikes early Friday morning local time did not appear to prioritize destroying Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Rather, he said, Israel’s military appeared to capitalize on the element of surprise to kill senior Iranian military leaders and nuclear scientists and to disable air defenses.
Although there were reports of explosions near Fordow, Israel does not appear to have struck the main installation, buried deep underground. “Before this, standard thinking was that Iran could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb in less than a week,” said Eric Brewer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative. “If Fordow is still operating, if the materials stored there are still intact, that timeline hasn’t changed.”
The estimated time needed for Iran to turn that material into a usable nuclear device remains murky, with intelligence and expert estimates ranging from several months to a year.

At Natanz, strikes destroyed several aboveground facilities and inflicted extensive damage on the electrical system — knocking out ventilation and power both above and below ground. It also leveled a small research plant that is Iran’s only aboveground enrichment plant, according to a report by Albright’s institute based on studying high-resolution satellite imagery.
“I would say they’ve disabled the facility by destroying the power substation, but they haven’t destroyed the facility in a way that would impact Iran’s long-term breakout” capacity to produce a weapon, said Decker Eveleth, an analyst specializing in satellite imagery at CNA, a policy and analysis nonprofit. “They need to actually destroy the centrifuges to do that,” he said.

“I imagine that the Israelis have got a plan for Fordow,” said Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA and White House official who is the vice president for policy at the Middle East Institute. Pollack speculated that such a plan could involve a raid by Israeli special forces or cyberattacks. “The truth is, we don’t know,” he said.

Israel's mission hinges on destroying Iran's hardest nuclear target

Some experts think Israel could try to replicate the effect of a massive bunker buster by repeatedly bombing the same location.

A much riskier approach would be sending special forces to raid the facility.
Israeli special forces conducted such a raid last September, albeit on a smaller scale, when they destroyed an underground missile factory in Syria by planting and detonating explosives. The entire operation took two hours.

https://x.com/TreyYingst/status/1933855683109163030

NEW: 40 Iranian air defense systems were hit since the beginning of the operation, I'm told by a Senior Israeli Intelligence Official. Additional strikes are expected in the hours and days ahead.

https://x.com/BarakRavid/status/1933861177869615170

IDF spokesman says dozens of Israeli fighter jets spent more than two hours over Tehran earlier today and attacked dozens of targets in the Iranian capital. The IDF claims it has eliminated all air defenses and achieved full freedom of operation in Tehran's airspace

How Mossad covertly prepared Israel’s attack from deep inside Iran

An operation dubbed “Rising Lion” by the Israeli government relied on the activation of clandestine intelligence teams, pre-positioned weapons caches and other capabilities that had lain dormant inside Iranian territory for weeks or even months, officials said.

The targeted killings were part of a “first wave” in the attack plan designed to kill “decision-makers” in the Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iran’s regime while they “were in places that we knew about,” the senior Israeli security official said. Israeli officials, who have an incentive to tout the success of the strikes, and others spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the secrecy of the operation, which expanded in the ensuing hours to include missile and airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites.

Among those killed in the opening phase were Maj. Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, commander of Iran’s military; Maj. Gen. Hossein Salami, commander in chief of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s main paramilitary force; and Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, a physicist and president of the Islamic Azad University in Tehran.

Israeli officials warned Friday that the decapitation campaign is poised to continue. The first security official said that Mossad had relayed messages to second-tier commanders and regime officials likely to be tapped to replace those killed.
“Some of them received a letter under the door; some received a phone call; some received a call on the number of their spouses,” the official said of messages meant to make clear that “we know where they are and that we have access to them.”

Mossad also established “a base of explosive drones” deep inside Iran well before the attack, weapons that were activated and aimed at ground-to-ground missile launch locations at Iran’s Esfajabad base near Tehran, the official said. The attack came just weeks after Ukraine carried out a similar operation, using armed drones hidden in shipping containers in strikes that stunned the Kremlin and destroyed Russian military aircraft on unprotected airstrips.
To neutralize other air defenses that might be used against Israeli jets, Mossad “secretly deployed strike systems and advanced technologies on vehicles,” an apparent reference to hidden explosives that could be remotely detonated to damage and disrupt air defense systems.
The first Israeli security official provided some additional detail about this aspect of the operation, indicating that it targeted trucks used to move Iranian missiles to launch sites. “For every truck you eliminate, you eliminate four missiles,” the official said.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Says No Nuclear Talks Tomorrow With U.S.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told European Union foreign-policy chief Kaja Kallas that Tehran isn’t going to engage in nuclear talks with the U.S. for now, a person briefed on the call between the two officials on Saturday said.

Araghchi said there would be no talks tomorrow, referring to the expected sixth round of nuclear negotiations between Iranian and American officials in Oman on Sunday, the person said. The person added that Araghchi didn’t appear to be closing the doors to talks in the future if the Israeli attacks end, with the Iranian foreign minister blaming the U.S. for the current situation. Kallas is also the head of the committee that oversees the 2015 nuclear accord under a U.N. mandate.

Iran Has Fired 200 Ballistic Missiles, 200 Drones Toward Israel

Iran has fired about 200 ballistic missiles in four barrages and more than 200 drones toward Israeli territory so far in response to multiple waves of Israeli strikes, an Israeli military official said.

Israel threatens to make Tehran 'burn' after Iranian retaliatory strikes

Iranian general and parliament member Esmail Kosari said the country was seriously reviewing whether to close the Strait of Hormuz, the outlet for oil shipped from the Gulf.

Many oil tanker owners reluctant to brave Strait of Hormuz, Frontline chief says

The world’s largest publicly listed oil tanker company is refusing new contracts to sail into the Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz following Israel’s attack on Iran, its chief executive has said.
The decision by Lars Barstad of Frontline is an early sign of the widespread disruption to global shipping patterns expected as a result of the outbreak of conflict early on Friday.
The concerns are focused on movements through the Hormuz Strait, the narrow stretch of water between Iran and Oman that links the Gulf and the Arabian Sea.
About a quarter of global oil supplies and a third of liquefied natural gas production move through the strait. It is also an important conduit for container ships going to and from the regional hub at Jebel Ali in Dubai.
Barstad said that “extremely few” owners, including Frontline, were accepting charters to enter the region.

 

[KarmaPolice]

They'd be deemed acts of terrorism. Let's just be honest about it.

I've always demarcated this by the target. These were military targets = not terrorism. USS Cole = not terrorism (act of war). Sept. 11th = terrorism. Etc., etc.

If a family member of yours was killed by an exploding cell phone while standing in line behind somebody to pay for some groceries, I think you would not qualify that death as a “military death”. If you are conducting a “military action” it needs to be done in a manner that does what it can to reduce innocent civilian casualties. Conducting a military action with no regard to the high possibility of innocent civilian casualties is something that is generally not condoned. If you have a hard time calling it terrorism—coordinating mass assassinations using explosive devices that have a high likelihood of going off in areas where non-military citizens were likely to get injured or killed is absolutely grounds for war crimes.

Thanks to these brave terrorists hiding behind their women and children (and others.... whom they gleefully broadcast casualties in order to win the PR war) it is impossible to conduct a true military operation. When the choice is to take action that regretfully may end in civilian casualties in order to stop attacks targeting civilians then a nation state is compelled to act as a matter of moral obligation. War has always had civilian casualties- the question has always been whether it is the goal to do so or not and how much effort to you exert to avoid it. Hamas, Hezbollah, etc hide behind their women and children. Israeli warfighters stand between these terrorists and their women and children. That and counting the number of Jews in Gaza/West Bank versus the number of Arabs in Israel and then you can easily figure out where evil resides.

Yep. If you put a military base under a hospital, you don't get to cry about war crimes when the hospital is hit. You've made it a military target.

It's also not the only example given about war crimes, and Hamas isn't the loudest voice making those accusations. From other countries to former members of Israel's government - I have seen examples and accusations of war crimes. Bombing hospitals was certainly a concern at the beginning of the war, but this year we have seen them purposely deny food and aid to the region. They have tried to limit calories so much and made plans to force the population elsewhere to pick up aid - both also have drawn heavy criticisms and accusations. They have openly talked with our administration backing them of plans to move the population elsewhere and take over the area. Those are the types of things I see citing when talking about war crimes and genocide now - not bombing hospitals that Hamas might be other.

 

[BassNBrew]

They'd be deemed acts of terrorism. Let's just be honest about it.

I've always demarcated this by the target. These were military targets = not terrorism. USS Cole = not terrorism (act of war). Sept. 11th = terrorism. Etc., etc.

If a family member of yours was killed by an exploding cell phone while standing in line behind somebody to pay for some groceries, I think you would not qualify that death as a “military death”. If you are conducting a “military action” it needs to be done in a manner that does what it can to reduce innocent civilian casualties. Conducting a military action with no regard to the high possibility of innocent civilian casualties is something that is generally not condoned. If you have a hard time calling it terrorism—coordinating mass assassinations using explosive devices that have a high likelihood of going off in areas where non-military citizens were likely to get injured or killed is absolutely grounds for war crimes.

Thanks to these brave terrorists hiding behind their women and children (and others.... whom they gleefully broadcast casualties in order to win the PR war) it is impossible to conduct a true military operation. When the choice is to take action that regretfully may end in civilian casualties in order to stop attacks targeting civilians then a nation state is compelled to act as a matter of moral obligation. War has always had civilian casualties- the question has always been whether it is the goal to do so or not and how much effort to you exert to avoid it. Hamas, Hezbollah, etc hide behind their women and children. Israeli warfighters stand between these terrorists and their women and children. That and counting the number of Jews in Gaza/West Bank versus the number of Arabs in Israel and then you can easily figure out where evil resides.

Yep. If you put a military base under a hospital, you don't get to cry about war crimes when the hospital is hit. You've made it a military target.

It's also not the only example given about war crimes, and Hamas isn't the loudest voice making those accusations. From other countries to former members of Israel's government - I have seen examples and accusations of war crimes. Bombing hospitals was certainly a concern at the beginning of the war, but this year we have seen them purposely deny food and aid to the region. They have tried to limit calories so much and made plans to force the population elsewhere to pick up aid - both also have drawn heavy criticisms and accusations. They have openly talked with our administration backing them of plans to move the population elsewhere and take over the area. Those are the types of things I see citing when talking about war crimes and genocide now - not bombing hospitals that Hamas might be other.

It's not a war crime unless you lose. Always been that way, always will be.

 

[Chadstroma]

They'd be deemed acts of terrorism. Let's just be honest about it.

I've always demarcated this by the target. These were military targets = not terrorism. USS Cole = not terrorism (act of war). Sept. 11th = terrorism. Etc., etc.

If a family member of yours was killed by an exploding cell phone while standing in line behind somebody to pay for some groceries, I think you would not qualify that death as a “military death”. If you are conducting a “military action” it needs to be done in a manner that does what it can to reduce innocent civilian casualties. Conducting a military action with no regard to the high possibility of innocent civilian casualties is something that is generally not condoned. If you have a hard time calling it terrorism—coordinating mass assassinations using explosive devices that have a high likelihood of going off in areas where non-military citizens were likely to get injured or killed is absolutely grounds for war crimes.

Thanks to these brave terrorists hiding behind their women and children (and others.... whom they gleefully broadcast casualties in order to win the PR war) it is impossible to conduct a true military operation. When the choice is to take action that regretfully may end in civilian casualties in order to stop attacks targeting civilians then a nation state is compelled to act as a matter of moral obligation. War has always had civilian casualties- the question has always been whether it is the goal to do so or not and how much effort to you exert to avoid it. Hamas, Hezbollah, etc hide behind their women and children. Israeli warfighters stand between these terrorists and their women and children. That and counting the number of Jews in Gaza/West Bank versus the number of Arabs in Israel and then you can easily figure out where evil resides.

Yep. If you put a military base under a hospital, you don't get to cry about war crimes when the hospital is hit. You've made it a military target.

It's also not the only example given about war crimes, and Hamas isn't the loudest voice making those accusations. From other countries to former members of Israel's government - I have seen examples and accusations of war crimes. Bombing hospitals was certainly a concern at the beginning of the war, but this year we have seen them purposely deny food and aid to the region. They have tried to limit calories so much and made plans to force the population elsewhere to pick up aid - both also have drawn heavy criticisms and accusations. They have openly talked with our administration backing them of plans to move the population elsewhere and take over the area. Those are the types of things I see citing when talking about war crimes and genocide now - not bombing hospitals that Hamas might be other.

After 77 years of fighting for your very existence through wars and terror attacks, literally, 77 years full of it. With enemies swearing to never stop until you are wiped from the earth in an actual genocide. The rejection of countless offers for two state solution- the five most major moments with two being BEFORE Israel was reborn being rejected by Arabs. 1937 Peel, 1947 UN, 1967 post 6 day war, 2000 Camp David, and 2008 Peace Proposal. Even so letting Gaza have some self-autonomy and they go and vote a terror organization devoted to killing all Jews into power and then after years of relative peace this same terror organization launches a terror raid aimed away from any military targets and directly at civilians killing over a thousand and taking hundreds as hostages.... at some point, it makes sense to just give up and say we need to get these people out of here. Is it the right move? No, probably not. Will it work? No. Even the Arab countries do not want Palestinians in their countries because they know they are a risk to destabilize their own countries (and then western countries moronically accept them because... well.... we are so good and they must see how good we are being to them, no?) so yes, not the right move and will not work but I can certainly understand it. What other solution does Israel have? These terrorists have given them two choices: Die or take drastic action.

 

[FiredMartz]

Are we still sending weapons and mortars to Ukraine?.....seems like it's time for us to stock up our own supply to be ready...this is getting ugly

 

[nysfl2]

They'd be deemed acts of terrorism. Let's just be honest about it.

I've always demarcated this by the target. These were military targets = not terrorism. USS Cole = not terrorism (act of war). Sept. 11th = terrorism. Etc., etc.

If a family member of yours was killed by an exploding cell phone while standing in line behind somebody to pay for some groceries, I think you would not qualify that death as a “military death”. If you are conducting a “military action” it needs to be done in a manner that does what it can to reduce innocent civilian casualties. Conducting a military action with no regard to the high possibility of innocent civilian casualties is something that is generally not condoned. If you have a hard time calling it terrorism—coordinating mass assassinations using explosive devices that have a high likelihood of going off in areas where non-military citizens were likely to get injured or killed is absolutely grounds for war crimes.

Everything that I’ve read about that attack was that it was extremely successful at avoiding bystander casualties

 

[Don't Toews Me]

https://x.com/IranIntl_En/status/1933907439973187996

#BREAKING Israeli micro air vehicle have targeted the Phase 14 of Iran's South Pars gas field, the world's largest natural gas field shared by Iran and Qatar.

https://x.com/michaelh992/status/1933909891304899065

Fars confirms the field was attacked using a small drone (like a quadcopter).

This suggests the attack was carried out from within Iran

https://x.com/ariel_oseran/status/1933907358293332030

Iranian reports of major Israeli airstrikes on the Fajr Jam natural gas refinery in Bushehr, southern Iran.

https://x.com/shashj/status/1933909547002785838

“David Albright, a nuclear weapons expert, speculated that the initial wave of attacks could set back any Iranian attempt to develop a nuclear weapon by about a year.”

https://x.com/jongambrellAP/status/1933911362734010871

APNewsAlert: DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (@AP) — Oman says talks between #Iran and the US over Tehran's nuclear program 'will not now take place' after Israeli strikes.

Iran Says Two More Generals Killed by Israel

Israeli strikes killed two more Iranian generals, Iranian broadcaster Press TV reported, on top of three others announced dead a day earlier.

General Gholamreza Mehrabi, deputy for intelligence of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, and General Mehdi Rabani, deputy for operations of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, were killed early Friday morning, Press TV said.

https://x.com/BarakRavid/status/1933905841586901004

New high-resolution satellite images collected by @maxar show no damage to the primary buildings at the Fordow enrichment facility. See here:

Israel’s Attacks Leave Iran’s Supreme Leader Exposed—With No Good Options

Iran has so far been unable to respond in kind. Most of the missiles it fired at Tel Aviv were intercepted or caused little damage.

A Miscalculation by Iran Led to Israeli Strikes’ Extensive Toll, Officials Say

This account of how Iranian officials were preparing before Israel conducted widespread attacks across their country on Friday, and how they reacted in the aftermath, is based on interviews with half a dozen senior Iranian officials and two members of the Revolutionary Guards. They all asked not to be named to discuss sensitive information.

Officials said that the night of Israel’s attack, senior military commanders did not shelter in safe houses and instead stayed in their own homes, a fateful decision. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards’ aerospace unit, and his senior staff ignored a directive against congregating in one location. They held an emergency war meeting at a military base in Tehran and were killed when Israel struck the base.

In private text messages shared with The New York Times, some officials were angrily asking one another, “Where is our air defense?” and “How can Israel come and attack anything it wants, kill our top commanders, and we are incapable of stopping it?” They also questioned the major intelligence and defense failures that had led to Iran’s inability to see the attacks coming, and the resulting damage.

A member of the Revolutionary Guards briefed on the meeting said that officials understood that Mr. Khamenei faced a pivotal moment in his nearly 40 years in power: He had to decide between acting, and risking an all-out war that could end his rule, or retreating, which would be interpreted domestically and internationally as defeat.

“Khamanei faces no good options,” said Ali Vaez, the Iran project director of the International Crisis Group. “If he escalates, he risks inviting a more devastating Israeli attack that the U.S. could join. If he doesn’t, he risks hollowing out his regime or losing power.”

Ultimately, Mr. Khamenei ordered Iran’s military to fire on Israel. Initially, the plan was to launch up to 1,000 ballistic missiles on Israel to overwhelm its air defense and ensure maximum damage, according to two members of the Guards. But Israel’s strikes on missile bases had made it impossible to move missiles quickly from storage and place them on launchpads, they added.
In the end, Iran could only muster about 100 missiles in its first waves of attacks. At least seven sites were struck around Tel Aviv, killing one person and injuring at least 20 more, and damaging residential buildings.

https://x.com/Mauro_Gilli/status/1933761194524881117

As expected, Israel is taking advantage of its air superiority to try to neutralize Iranian missile launchers. For the next couple of days, at least, we are going to see a cat-and-mouse game.
It's going to be interesting to see whether Iran will manage to successfully conceal its assets and still manage to employ them effectively. Israeli (and, I suspect, American) satellite and airborne sensors are scanning Iran trying to detect, identify & track such launchers.

Iran's strategy of digging down poses problem Israel may not be able to solve

This afternoon, IDF spokesperson Effie Defrin says Israel has “air freedom all the way to Tehran”.

But air defences are not the only thing protecting Iran’s extensive nuclear operations.

Many of Iran’s most important facilities are buried deep underground, protected by layers of earth and reinforced concrete.

The fuel enrichment plant at Fordow, for example, is thought to be around 80m (262ft) below the surface, while analysts say a new facility at Mt Kolang is even deeper.

Targeting sites like this requires specialist bombs, such as the GBU-57/B, or Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). Colloquially known as "bunker busters", this huge 30,000lb bomb is capable of destroying targets buried under about 60m of reinforced concrete.

But the US is not currently taking part in the strikes, and Israel does not possess the MOP.

As for what they do have, the most effective weapons they possess are the ROCKS or the Air LORA, air-launched ballistic missiles capable of destroying up to 6m of reinforced concrete.

According to Justin Bronk of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), attacking a deep facility with these would require multiple precise strikes at the same point to "burrow down".

With each strike destroying around 6m of concrete, reaching sites like Fordow or Mt Kolang looks like a remote prospect.

According to Alon Pinkas, who advised two Israeli prime ministers, Israel simply does not possess the stocks of munitions for the task.

The more realistic option would be to target entry and exit tunnels, rendering the facilities unusable.

The issue with this strategy, according to the RUSI report, is that Iranian efforts to dig down to the facilities and re-establish access "would likely begin almost immediately". All of which serves to explain why Bronk and others say destroying Iran's nuclear programme through military means is "not feasible". Undoubtedly it can be set back, especially through the extensive assassinations of top scientists, but as long as the regime survives, it will attempt to build back.

 

[KarmaPolice]

They'd be deemed acts of terrorism. Let's just be honest about it.

I've always demarcated this by the target. These were military targets = not terrorism. USS Cole = not terrorism (act of war). Sept. 11th = terrorism. Etc., etc.

If a family member of yours was killed by an exploding cell phone while standing in line behind somebody to pay for some groceries, I think you would not qualify that death as a “military death”. If you are conducting a “military action” it needs to be done in a manner that does what it can to reduce innocent civilian casualties. Conducting a military action with no regard to the high possibility of innocent civilian casualties is something that is generally not condoned. If you have a hard time calling it terrorism—coordinating mass assassinations using explosive devices that have a high likelihood of going off in areas where non-military citizens were likely to get injured or killed is absolutely grounds for war crimes.

Thanks to these brave terrorists hiding behind their women and children (and others.... whom they gleefully broadcast casualties in order to win the PR war) it is impossible to conduct a true military operation. When the choice is to take action that regretfully may end in civilian casualties in order to stop attacks targeting civilians then a nation state is compelled to act as a matter of moral obligation. War has always had civilian casualties- the question has always been whether it is the goal to do so or not and how much effort to you exert to avoid it. Hamas, Hezbollah, etc hide behind their women and children. Israeli warfighters stand between these terrorists and their women and children. That and counting the number of Jews in Gaza/West Bank versus the number of Arabs in Israel and then you can easily figure out where evil resides.

Yep. If you put a military base under a hospital, you don't get to cry about war crimes when the hospital is hit. You've made it a military target.

It's also not the only example given about war crimes, and Hamas isn't the loudest voice making those accusations. From other countries to former members of Israel's government - I have seen examples and accusations of war crimes. Bombing hospitals was certainly a concern at the beginning of the war, but this year we have seen them purposely deny food and aid to the region. They have tried to limit calories so much and made plans to force the population elsewhere to pick up aid - both also have drawn heavy criticisms and accusations. They have openly talked with our administration backing them of plans to move the population elsewhere and take over the area. Those are the types of things I see citing when talking about war crimes and genocide now - not bombing hospitals that Hamas might be other.

After 77 years of fighting for your very existence through wars and terror attacks, literally, 77 years full of it. With enemies swearing to never stop until you are wiped from the earth in an actual genocide. The rejection of countless offers for two state solution- the five most major moments with two being BEFORE Israel was reborn being rejected by Arabs. 1937 Peel, 1947 UN, 1967 post 6 day war, 2000 Camp David, and 2008 Peace Proposal. Even so letting Gaza have some self-autonomy and they go and vote a terror organization devoted to killing all Jews into power and then after years of relative peace this same terror organization launches a terror raid aimed away from any military targets and directly at civilians killing over a thousand and taking hundreds as hostages.... at some point, it makes sense to just give up and say we need to get these people out of here. Is it the right move? No, probably not. Will it work? No. Even the Arab countries do not want Palestinians in their countries because they know they are a risk to destabilize their own countries (and then western countries moronically accept them because... well.... we are so good and they must see how good we are being to them, no?) so yes, not the right move and will not work but I can certainly understand it. What other solution does Israel have? These terrorists have given them two choices: Die or take drastic action.

I guess I disagree there are only two choices. There is something in-between Israel's annihilation and the population of Gaza's. Also, Israel's choices don't have to be ours or funded by us either. We seemed to have been open to the idea of more deals with Iran and are not getting drawn into more war in the middle east because of Israel's choices and actions. That is the main problem I have - I am getting tired of the US being in perpetual war and/or funding other countries' perpetual wars.

 

[Chadstroma]

They'd be deemed acts of terrorism. Let's just be honest about it.

I've always demarcated this by the target. These were military targets = not terrorism. USS Cole = not terrorism (act of war). Sept. 11th = terrorism. Etc., etc.

If a family member of yours was killed by an exploding cell phone while standing in line behind somebody to pay for some groceries, I think you would not qualify that death as a “military death”. If you are conducting a “military action” it needs to be done in a manner that does what it can to reduce innocent civilian casualties. Conducting a military action with no regard to the high possibility of innocent civilian casualties is something that is generally not condoned. If you have a hard time calling it terrorism—coordinating mass assassinations using explosive devices that have a high likelihood of going off in areas where non-military citizens were likely to get injured or killed is absolutely grounds for war crimes.

Thanks to these brave terrorists hiding behind their women and children (and others.... whom they gleefully broadcast casualties in order to win the PR war) it is impossible to conduct a true military operation. When the choice is to take action that regretfully may end in civilian casualties in order to stop attacks targeting civilians then a nation state is compelled to act as a matter of moral obligation. War has always had civilian casualties- the question has always been whether it is the goal to do so or not and how much effort to you exert to avoid it. Hamas, Hezbollah, etc hide behind their women and children. Israeli warfighters stand between these terrorists and their women and children. That and counting the number of Jews in Gaza/West Bank versus the number of Arabs in Israel and then you can easily figure out where evil resides.

Yep. If you put a military base under a hospital, you don't get to cry about war crimes when the hospital is hit. You've made it a military target.

It's also not the only example given about war crimes, and Hamas isn't the loudest voice making those accusations. From other countries to former members of Israel's government - I have seen examples and accusations of war crimes. Bombing hospitals was certainly a concern at the beginning of the war, but this year we have seen them purposely deny food and aid to the region. They have tried to limit calories so much and made plans to force the population elsewhere to pick up aid - both also have drawn heavy criticisms and accusations. They have openly talked with our administration backing them of plans to move the population elsewhere and take over the area. Those are the types of things I see citing when talking about war crimes and genocide now - not bombing hospitals that Hamas might be other.

After 77 years of fighting for your very existence through wars and terror attacks, literally, 77 years full of it. With enemies swearing to never stop until you are wiped from the earth in an actual genocide. The rejection of countless offers for two state solution- the five most major moments with two being BEFORE Israel was reborn being rejected by Arabs. 1937 Peel, 1947 UN, 1967 post 6 day war, 2000 Camp David, and 2008 Peace Proposal. Even so letting Gaza have some self-autonomy and they go and vote a terror organization devoted to killing all Jews into power and then after years of relative peace this same terror organization launches a terror raid aimed away from any military targets and directly at civilians killing over a thousand and taking hundreds as hostages.... at some point, it makes sense to just give up and say we need to get these people out of here. Is it the right move? No, probably not. Will it work? No. Even the Arab countries do not want Palestinians in their countries because they know they are a risk to destabilize their own countries (and then western countries moronically accept them because... well.... we are so good and they must see how good we are being to them, no?) so yes, not the right move and will not work but I can certainly understand it. What other solution does Israel have? These terrorists have given them two choices: Die or take drastic action.

I guess I disagree there are only two choices. There is something in-between Israel's annihilation and the population of Gaza's. Also, Israel's choices don't have to be ours or funded by us either. We seemed to have been open to the idea of more deals with Iran and are not getting drawn into more war in the middle east because of Israel's choices and actions. That is the main problem I have - I am getting tired of the US being in perpetual war and/or funding other countries' perpetual wars.

Hamas disagrees with you. Israel doesn't.

 

[djmich]

They'd be deemed acts of terrorism. Let's just be honest about it.

I've always demarcated this by the target. These were military targets = not terrorism. USS Cole = not terrorism (act of war). Sept. 11th = terrorism. Etc., etc.

If a family member of yours was killed by an exploding cell phone while standing in line behind somebody to pay for some groceries, I think you would not qualify that death as a “military death”. If you are conducting a “military action” it needs to be done in a manner that does what it can to reduce innocent civilian casualties. Conducting a military action with no regard to the high possibility of innocent civilian casualties is something that is generally not condoned. If you have a hard time calling it terrorism—coordinating mass assassinations using explosive devices that have a high likelihood of going off in areas where non-military citizens were likely to get injured or killed is absolutely grounds for war crimes.

Thanks to these brave terrorists hiding behind their women and children (and others.... whom they gleefully broadcast casualties in order to win the PR war) it is impossible to conduct a true military operation. When the choice is to take action that regretfully may end in civilian casualties in order to stop attacks targeting civilians then a nation state is compelled to act as a matter of moral obligation. War has always had civilian casualties- the question has always been whether it is the goal to do so or not and how much effort to you exert to avoid it. Hamas, Hezbollah, etc hide behind their women and children. Israeli warfighters stand between these terrorists and their women and children. That and counting the number of Jews in Gaza/West Bank versus the number of Arabs in Israel and then you can easily figure out where evil resides.

Yep. If you put a military base under a hospital, you don't get to cry about war crimes when the hospital is hit. You've made it a military target.

It's also not the only example given about war crimes, and Hamas isn't the loudest voice making those accusations. From other countries to former members of Israel's government - I have seen examples and accusations of war crimes. Bombing hospitals was certainly a concern at the beginning of the war, but this year we have seen them purposely deny food and aid to the region. They have tried to limit calories so much and made plans to force the population elsewhere to pick up aid - both also have drawn heavy criticisms and accusations. They have openly talked with our administration backing them of plans to move the population elsewhere and take over the area. Those are the types of things I see citing when talking about war crimes and genocide now - not bombing hospitals that Hamas might be other.

After 77 years of fighting for your very existence through wars and terror attacks, literally, 77 years full of it. With enemies swearing to never stop until you are wiped from the earth in an actual genocide. The rejection of countless offers for two state solution- the five most major moments with two being BEFORE Israel was reborn being rejected by Arabs. 1937 Peel, 1947 UN, 1967 post 6 day war, 2000 Camp David, and 2008 Peace Proposal. Even so letting Gaza have some self-autonomy and they go and vote a terror organization devoted to killing all Jews into power and then after years of relative peace this same terror organization launches a terror raid aimed away from any military targets and directly at civilians killing over a thousand and taking hundreds as hostages.... at some point, it makes sense to just give up and say we need to get these people out of here. Is it the right move? No, probably not. Will it work? No. Even the Arab countries do not want Palestinians in their countries because they know they are a risk to destabilize their own countries (and then western countries moronically accept them because... well.... we are so good and they must see how good we are being to them, no?) so yes, not the right move and will not work but I can certainly understand it. What other solution does Israel have? These terrorists have given them two choices: Die or take drastic action.

I guess I disagree there are only two choices. There is something in-between Israel's annihilation and the population of Gaza's. Also, Israel's choices don't have to be ours or funded by us either. We seemed to have been open to the idea of more deals with Iran and are not getting drawn into more war in the middle east because of Israel's choices and actions. That is the main problem I have - I am getting tired of the US being in perpetual war and/or funding other countries' perpetual wars.

It's hard not to evaluate that in between as being periodic murders of Israeli citizens. I don't think I'd want to accept that in between if I was Israel either, especially if frankly I had the wherewithal not to.

 

[FarFromHome]

What makes this hard for Israel is that it's adversaries in the region have basically two gears. War. Prepare for war. So they are either literally at war, or they are preparing for war. Does anyone think a trade deal for Tupperware containers would result in a time where they think differently? They would use the Tupperware money in the deal to prepare for war. Ha ha

 

[Chadstroma]

What makes this hard for Israel is that it's adversaries in the region have basically two gears. War. Prepare for war. So they are either literally at war, or they are preparing for war. Does anyone think a trade deal for Tupperware containers would result in a time where they think differently? They would use the Tupperware money in the deal to prepare for war. Ha ha

Hamas has used all the massive aid given to the Gazans for themselves. If people really wanted to support Gazans, they would support the eradication of Hamas.

 

[KarmaPolice]

What is also hard is that this is largely because of religion, which adds a huge layer of frustration for me. Much harder to back down.

 

[FarFromHome]

What is also hard is that this is largely because of religion, which adds a huge layer of frustration for me. Much harder to back down.

Outside of man's basic desire for land, religion is the foundational issue in all this. War is always tough when each side thinks God is with them.

 

[KarmaPolice]

What makes this hard for Israel is that it's adversaries in the region have basically two gears. War. Prepare for war. So they are either literally at war, or they are preparing for war. Does anyone think a trade deal for Tupperware containers would result in a time where they think differently? They would use the Tupperware money in the deal to prepare for war. Ha ha

Hamas has used all the massive aid given to the Gazans for themselves. If people really wanted to support Gazans, they would support the eradication of Hamas.

People can support the eradication of Hamas and believe that denying food and aid to all Palestinians in the area is not acceptable (using one example).

I fully back Isreal defending itself. I just believe they have crossed a line past self defense and the US shouldn't be associated with that policy wise, or financially.

 

[KarmaPolice]

What is also hard is that this is largely because of religion, which adds a huge layer of frustration for me. Much harder to back down.

Outside of man's basic desire for land, religion is the foundational issue in all this. War is always tough when each side thinks God is with them.

And being someone who doesn't believe in those things, it makes it harder to see good on either side. I know there are fundamentalists in our administrations who would also like war for religious reasons.

 

[Don't Toews Me]

Iran’s Nuclear Sites Hobbled But Not Destroyed, Experts Say

The full extent of the destruction caused by the ongoing missile barrage is only starting to become clear. International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi told the United Nations Security Council on Friday that while Israel destroyed surface facilities at Iran’s main nuclear-fuel site in Natanz, it hadn’t yet breached the primary underground halls where uranium enrichment takes place.

Experts said the airstrikes will make it harder to monitor Iran’s atomic activities, given UN-backed inspectors probably won’t be given access to sites for a long time. The attack is also unlikely to end Tehran’s nuclear program even if progress is slowed, according to Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association.
“There’s a real risk that Iran may divert uranium, enriched to near-weapons grade levels, to a covert location, or that due to the damage, the IAEA may not be able to account for all of Iran’s nuclear materials,” Davenport said.

Iran’s 400 kilograms (880 pounds) of highly-enriched uranium could fit in three or four easily-concealed cylinders, according to Robert Kelley, the nuclear-weapons engineer. Concern has mounted that Iran could use the material as the feedstock for a weapon, should it follow-through on threats to opt out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty — a global initiative to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons — and kick out inspectors.

Can Israel Destroy Iran's Nuclear Program?

It could take weeks before experts understand the full extent of the damage Israel has dealt, let alone if and how Tehran will recover. The attacks, after all, aren’t even finished. But although it may not yet be possible to judge the long-term effects of Israel’s strikes, analysts do know what to look for as they evaluate the results. Experts can, in other words, figure out what factors will determine whether the attacks were a success in denying Iran nuclear weapons capability.
Some of those factors are quantifiable. To stop or seriously slow Iran’s ability to make a weapon, for instance, Israel’s strikes had to deny Iran the material needed to fuel nuclear weapons. They needed to blow up equipment necessary for manufacturing weapons. And they had to at least partially rid Iran of the knowledge required to turn all its material into bombs. But the final factor is less palpable. To fully succeed, Israel’s attack must also have convinced Iran to reconsider the viability of its nuclear weapons project.
Israel’s attacks have thus far been successful in destroying many of the power stations, buildings, and infrastructure Iran needs for its nuclear program. Israel has also demonstrated the ability to attack targets in Iran largely at will. But success is by no means assured, given Iran’s substantial investment in defensive fortifications, its commitment to the program, its redundant systems, and the intrinsic difficulty of Israel’s task.

So far, the damage from Israel’s attacks on Iran’s facilities appears mixed. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran’s most dangerous uranium enrichment site at Fordow has been attacked, but there is no confirmation that its defenses have been breached or that its couple of thousand centrifuges have been destroyed. There is also no indication that Israel has rendered unusable Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium. If that stockpile is still available, and if Iran’s centrifuges still exist, Tehran may be able to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program in just weeks. It could, for example, ship its hoard of 60 percent enriched uranium to Fordow (or a secret site) for further enrichment, quickly giving it enough uranium to make a bomb.
But to actually build a nuclear weapon, Iran needs more than weapons-grade enriched uranium. It also needs processing equipment that can turn the uranium into metal, shape it into weapons components, and then build the weapon itself. Doing all that in the midst of war will be difficult, especially given the world’s decades-long effort to deny Iran the necessary gear. Analysts also do not know how close Iran was to being able to produce a warhead for a missile, although intelligence agencies had assessed that it would take Iran months to do so.
Still, there is much about Iran’s weapons program that experts do not know. Shortly before the strikes, for example, the International Atomic Energy Agency delivered a comprehensive report on the many outstanding questions related to Iran’s nuclear program and especially its past weaponization work. Some of those questions focus on the location of equipment that would be useful for weapons production—equipment that Iran could potentially use now. Israeli intelligence operatives may know where this gear is stored, and they may have destroyed it last night (or will do so soon). It is foolish to underestimate Israeli intelligence in Iran, given all the operational successes it has had. But Iran is a big country, with lots of places for equipment to be hidden and used.

https://x.com/ian_j_stewart/status/1933908898551128430

We now have a major problem. We don't know where Iran's enriched material is. "We had already moved a significant part of the equipment and materials out, and there was no extensive damage, and there are no contamination concerns."
I had assumed Israel would hit key sites straight away, including Fordow, meaning material could not quickly be moved. Apparently not. Those cylinders of enriched uranium are the most valuable thing in Iran right now. Where are they? Has movement been reported to the IAEA?

https://x.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1933924399725584632

From a review of satellite imagery this morning (@planet, @airbus, @Maxar), I still don't see any damage to Iran's Fordow (Qom) uranium enrichment plant. If Israel doesn't have a plan for destroying Fordow, I don't see how any of this is worth. (1/2)

https://x.com/iaeaorg/status/1933926663689015698

Based on info available to @IAEAorg, 4 critical buildings at Esfahan nuclear site were damaged in yesterday’s attack, including the Uranium Conversion Facility and the Fuel Plate Fabrication Plant.

As in Natanz, no increase in off-site radiation expected.

https://x.com/ian_j_stewart/status/1933912757029527720

Grossi's statement to the Security Council did not speak to the current location or status of the enriched materials. The IAEA is presumably not inspecting sites right now. https://iaea.org/newscenter/stateme...rossis-statement-to-unsc-on-situation-in-iran

https://x.com/DDolzikova/status/1933870864648307045

Stocks of enriched uranium are held at Isfahan. IAEA has reported attacks on the site but extent of any damage unclear. Some reporting saying stocks of enriched uranium not hit. NYT story linked below.

What does all this mean for the Iranian nuclear programme?
Some good debate on here already on what the ultimate point of this Israeli action may be. Probably some combo of nuclear programme roll-back and political destabilisation.

In terms of dealing with the Iranian proliferation threat, this is likely to be a plaster, not the cure.
The harm to the programme is meaningful but not decisive. A number of key fissile material production sites seem to have largely escaped serious damage (so far). Meanwhile, impact on threat-perception and decision-making in Iran on the programme likely seriously counterproductive
This is what those who have opposed military action have long warned.

The programme - including the expertise on which any reconstitution/weaponisation will rely - is too advanced and dispersed to decisively finish off militarily. As I keep saying, this isn’t Osirak or Al-Kibar.
IL has demonstrated both intent and capability to roll back Iran’s technical capabilities.

But any IR decision to keep rebuilding or even to weaponise will include a political decision/threat assessment. From that perspective, I fear this has exacerbated the proliferation threat

 

[Harry Frogfish]

What is also hard is that this is largely because of religion, which adds a huge layer of frustration for me. Much harder to back down.

Outside of man's basic desire for land, religion is the foundational issue in all this. War is always tough when each side thinks God is with them.

And those are things I can't ever see it changing. There's just no way. Some universal light bulb isn't going to come on. Never been a doomsday type and we're far from there, but that timeline sure has accelerated this century or two.

Again I go back to, holy **** were/are we lucky to have been in this window of time, and where. Incredibly fortunate. A glorious speck in time.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

What makes this hard for Israel is that it's adversaries in the region have basically two gears. War. Prepare for war. So they are either literally at war, or they are preparing for war. Does anyone think a trade deal for Tupperware containers would result in a time where they think differently? They would use the Tupperware money in the deal to prepare for war. Ha ha

Hamas has used all the massive aid given to the Gazans for themselves. If people really wanted to support Gazans, they would support the eradication of Hamas.

People can support the eradication of Hamas and believe that denying food and aid to all Palestinians in the area is not acceptable (using one example).

I fully back Isreal defending itself. I just believe they have crossed a line past self defense and the US shouldn't be associated with that policy wise, or financially.

What specifically do you think Israel should do to defend itself (successfully)?

 

[TLEF316]

What is also hard is that this is largely because of religion, which adds a huge layer of frustration for me. Much harder to back down.

Outside of man's basic desire for land, religion is the foundational issue in all this. War is always tough when each side thinks God is with them.

And those are things I can't ever see it changing. There's just no way. Some universal light bulb isn't going to come on. Never been a doomsday type and we're far from there, but that timeline sure has accelerated this century or two.

Again I go back to, holy **** were/are we lucky to have been in this window of time, and where. Incredibly fortunate. A glorious speck in time.

Yup. We've got hundreds of years of history here. (hell....thousands)

Both sides want the land because they think their God says its theirs.

This only realistically ends 2 ways.

1) Israel actually just wipes out the Palestinians.
2) the US and the rest of the western world abandons support of Israel for some reason, allowing a coalition of Arab nations to band together and wipe them out somehow.

That's the incredibly sad reality unless some incredible planet-altering event occurs that absolutely forces all of humanity to band together (an Independence Day scenario) these 2 can never peacefully co-exist long term. And if that happens....the hostile alien force that traveled millions of light years to take our planet smokes us anyway.