Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Israel Launches strike against Irans Nuclear Programme

1969799101102108

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,933 ✭✭✭Homelander


    I don't think they quite did that.

    They referred to the phenomenom where someone hates one country so much they automatically lean towards another that opposes it, regardless of how terrible, just as bad, worse, or whatever else that country might be and/or seek to downplay those facts.

    Not unique to this case. There's plenty of people that are so anti-US they make excuses for despotic, authoritarian dumps like Russia.

    Israel-Iran conflict and Gaza are certainly interconnected via Iran, but I find it's quite common that radically incorrect conclusions or conflations are drawn from that fact.

    We also get - and I can only stress this is from some people, not everyone, or even close to everyone - insinuations that Iran did nothing to justify aggression from Israel, does what it does on some noble crusade to free Palestine, etc.

    I think things get particularly shakey when there's the odd insinuation that Iran should be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb.

    And yeah, we all know Israel has nuclear weapons, and a lot of them. But that doesn't mean that should be a green light for other nations to have them as well, particularly fundamentalist regimes.

    It also doesn't mean that you think it's fantastic that Israel has nuclear weapons. But they do. It's a bit like the argument that Israel should never have been founded where it was founded in the 1940's.

    Ok, sure, it's a valid opinion, but it's not a particuarly constructive part of any debate in 2025 unless you're an advocate of time travel.

    Context is important too. I think most logical minds would agree that Iran developing nuclear weapons is a far graver threat to the region and to the world than say, Poland developing nuclear missiles, not that I'm advocating for that either.

    As you say - two cheeks of the same backside is a pretty reasonable opinion to hold. Israel can be wrong, Iran can be wrong.

    Iran's been screwing around with Israel since 1979 and their dual deterrence/ballistic strategy was a deliberate shield to ensure they never got any blowback given geographical distance……until the whole thing collapsed.

    For me that's a big thing, when people can't acknowledge that. It's not endorsement of Israel. It's certainly not endorsement of anything Israel does, is doing, will do in the future.

    Same with acknowledging that Israel has a massive upper hand on Iran militarily.

    It's just a fact. It doesn't take sides. So why is there a need for anyone to challenge that, rather than focus on other objective facts, like Israel is quite clearly turning Gaza into a wasteland.

    Really, it's no different to accepting Russia is militarily superior to Ukraine in the overall scheme of things, and that not meaning you're draping yourself in a USSR flag.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    Honestly, there's very little of this I could disagree with.

    For me, it's very much not a suggestion that Israel having nuclear weapons is some sort of defense of Iran pursuing them, but rather pointing out the hypocrisy of the Israeli state in using it as a (faux)justification for their aggression.

    I'd agree that hypothetical Polish development of nuclear weapon is much less of a threat to the region (or any other region) than Iran.....given their propensity for aggression, I'm not convinced that Israel having nuclear weapons is any less of a grave threat to the region than Iran would be.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,071 ✭✭✭dmcdona


    All well and good focusing on the dynamic between Israel and Iran but Israel is kicking seven colours out of anyone that even looks at it in a funny way. And they have no hesitation in killing their own either.

    Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen. Even UN peacekeepers.

    Wouldn't surprise me if they even have a pop at Jordan and Egypt soon.

    Of course, some of the attacks outside of Israel were justified. But the Israeli methods show they'll take anyone out - including civilians (pagers) regardless of innocence or guilt.

    The hipocricy of Israel when Iran struck nearby a hospital - after the devastation they wrought in Gaza.

    So, that's what I hate - I don't "hate" Israel. I hate injustice, bullying, aggression and non adherence to international law, the hypocrisy. And I hate the fact that others (not you) see that all their actions are justified, approved of or just ignored or waved away.

    Can't speak for others but I suspect that is the majority view.

    That others fire in the "you hate Israel" jibe every now and then is indicative of there being no other cogent argument - just name calling.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,595 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    In effect you are saying that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would change nothing, because Israel appear to have had them for 50 years, and never used them, despite the huge provocation from the Iranian backed Hamas and Hezbollah.

    I don't believe that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons that they would sit on them for 50 years without using them.

    The other thing is that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons that would be a greater threat to this island than Israel having them. They mean those "death to the West" slogans, and London would be a target, and other British cities, we wouldn't avoid the fallout.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,595 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    They actually are different things. My dislike of the Iranian regime is partly driven by their ruthless oppression within their own country. They execute thousands of their own every year. I have repeatedly posted about their laws against women justifying rape.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/25/iran-intensifies-internal-security-crackdown-with-executions-and-mass-arrests

    "Iranian authorities are pivoting from a ceasefire with Israel to intensify an internal security crackdown across the country with mass arrests, executions and military deployments, particularly in the restive Kurdish region, according to officials and activists."

    So impossible to equate a hatred of the Iranian regime with hatred of Iranian people as it is the Iranian people who are suffering most at the hands of the regime.

    On the other hand, your clear and evident hatred of all things Israeli is based on the treatment of others by Israelis, and not on the treatment of the Israeli people by the Israeli regime. You have shown no motivation of concern for the Israeli people. Other posters have been far worse, effectively cheering on Iran giving ordinary Israeli people a "dose of their own medicine".



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,071 ✭✭✭dmcdona


    You really do have a serious issue of equating criticism of Israeli actions as hatred of Israel.

    If you think genocide, war crimes and atrocities by the day should not elicit a horrified response from any normal, moral, humane person, you should question your own morality.

    And name calling really isn't an argument - just indicative of an argument that is lost.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,462 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    I’m not sure why you say

    It also doesn't mean that you think it's fantastic that Israel has nuclear weapons. But they do. It's a bit like the argument that Israel should never have been founded where it was founded in the 1940's.”

    As if once a country becomes a nuclear power it must remain a nuclear power forever. Apartheid South Africa voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons when it transitioned to full democracy.

    Posters would also point to the surrendering of nuclear arsenals by former Soviet republics

    A nuclear free zone for the Middle East was proposed by Iran and Egypt in the 1970s. Israel was always the main obstacle. As recently as 2019 a conference on a nuclear free Middle East was boycotted by Israel and the US.

    Let’s not forget that before the Islamic revolution the Shah had his own nuclear program with declassified intelligence outlining nuclear weapons ambitions.

    There is no doubt there was a certain schadenfraude in witnessing the rank hypocrisy of Israeli reaction to the bombing of hospitals in Israel. The bombing of hospitals should elicit outrage whether they are in Iran, Israel or Gaza.

    I question your assertion that


     “Iran's been screwing around with Israel since 1979”

    Israel and Iran had close ties prior to the revolution as both non Arab states. Iran was seen by Israel as a counterweight to pan Arabism.

    Israel supplied weapons to Iran during the Iran/Iraq war because Saddam was seen as the bigger threat.
    The turning point was Israel’s invasion of Lebanon ( the 1982 invasion as opposed to the 1978 or 2006 Israeli invasion) and in response, the creation of Hezbollah, a Shia organisation, which was largely supported and funded by Iran. The 1982 Israeli invasion was based on an Israeli lie that their London ambassador was attacked by the PLO.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭Miniegg




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,462 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Where is your evidence that Iran executes thousands of their own every year? According to Iran Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International an average of 437 people have been executed in the years between 2017 and 2023. Still a lot of people but you claim “thousands” , ie more than 2000 every year. The facts don’t support this


    Apart from the unnecessary exaggeration. Your point about hating a regime because of their treatment of x people isn’t the same as hating a regime because of their treatment of y people is ludicrous and obscene.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,159 ✭✭✭Bogey Lowenstein
    That must be Nigel with the brie...


    Israel even persuaded the US to give missiles to Iran during the Iran/Contra episode. They are not age old enemies as some people are trying to make out.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,721 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Lol yeah, they've only executed hundreds of their own citizens, including 31 women last year for crimes such as defending themselves from rape and domestic violence. Great bunch of lads etc etc . Get a grip if you're defending these despotic assholes.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,147 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    The Ayatollah has zero interest in peace with Israel or the West. The Iranian people, by and large do, their supreme leader, nope.

    I was a big supporter of the 2015 NPT with Iran. With retrospect it never going to happen. It's two worlds over there. Khamenei's entire grip on power is based around having Israel/West as a perpetual enemy. Unless that changes, then every few years Israel is going to have to neutralise Iran's "peaceful" nuclear weaponisation program and it's proxies.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,462 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    I am not defending the killing of women anywhere. Israel has killed more Muslim women in the areas it controls by a factor of over 500. You will understand if I’m cynical about the women’s rights argument coming from some supporters of a regime deliberately shooting hungry women queuing for food.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 170 ✭✭AugustRain


    You’re defending a regime that executes women who complain about being raped.
    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250106-iran-executed-over-30-women-in-2024-ngo



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 170 ✭✭AugustRain


    this is unbelievable. “Yeah. Iran is bad to women. But Israel is worser. That’s why I support Iran.”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,462 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    As I’ve said. Repeatedly. I am not defending the killing of any women. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of condemning the killing of women based purely on whether they are being killed by Iran or Israel. I condemn both but some posters on here defend the killing of women by Israel while simultaneously condemning the killing of women by Iran.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,462 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    The discussion is about why Israel is more trustworthy with nuclear weapons than Iran would be.
    The argument is, well you know Iran killed 31 women in 2024 and they don’t respect women’s rights. That you didn’t think the fact that Israel has killed thousands and thousands and thousands of women in the territories in controls in 2024 and cut off the most basic rights to women like food, water, medicine, shelter, etc, is a counter to those arguments speaks volumes.
    One doesn’t “defend” Iran by pointing out the flaws in this argument. The argument itself is a fallacy.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,142 ✭✭✭threeball


    The Ayatollah, certainly does not need Israel or the west as an enemy to maintain power. He just needs to control the army and the vast majority of the intelligence services and the weapons, just like Putin, Kim or any other authoritarian holding power.

    I'm not sure what you mean the NPT was never going to happen. Just look at the graph I posted previously. It very obviously was happening and working until Mango man decided to pull out. He's been sabre rattling at every minor authoritarian you can think of since 2016 except for Putin and Xi. In his first term, he went after the "little rocket man", next thing he was his bestie, this time round its Maduro and the Ayatollah. Within 3 months, he'll be having sleepovers with them too. ITS Trump thats creating the boogeymen to cover up the shady shít he's up to.

    Israel has no right to get involved in the affairs of another country but it knows it must also create eternal enemies to keep the dollars flowing. Its not a viable country without US support



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,147 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Like many authoritarian regimes he requires a perpetual external conflict and "aggressors" to maintain and consolidate his grip on power. He projects himself as a "protector" of Islamic values which requires having the West/Israel as ideological enemies. Likewise they are treated as a common enemy to create a sense of national unity.

    All of this is used to justify the internal repression (root out spies, anti-Iranians, etc, etc) and a distraction from domestic problems.

    It's not going to change any time soon (or at all)

    Israel doesn't care about "fairness" or whatever notions, only the threats, so every few years they will launch strikes to reduce the Ayatollah's capacity to weaponise his "peaceful" underground nuclear program and likewise neutralise the proxy militant armies by whatever means.

    We can't pretend the Ayatollah has no agency (he's a dictator), but indeed as we can see he's unlikely to ever come onside like e.g. Saudi and as such this will be the reality.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,462 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Well the whole outside “aggressor” narrative spun by the ayatollah has really been blown following the bombing of Iran by the US and Israel. The people will never fall for that one again.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,605 ✭✭✭xhomelezz


    And the whole "protector" thingy narrative spun by the ayatollah turned against it's own people. The people will never fall for that again...

    Hit the switch to keep the lights on.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,462 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    The Iranians support for the regime appears to have been galvanised by the illegal, Israeli sneak attack. The “Shah”has returned to his brownstone in Washington DC.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,142 ✭✭✭threeball


    You could turn around a apply everything you've said to America. Its not been authoritarian up to now but they're not strangers to manufacturing external threats. Self appointed Protectors of democratic values. Starting wars to create a national sense of unity.

    All to justify external repression. And now some internal too.

    Theres no reason or need for Iran to "come onside". America can't decide how the rest of the world should live or pretend to impose democracy when they dont even have a democracy themselves.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 850 ✭✭✭batman75


    It looks like Mileikowsky asked Trump to negotiate a ceasefire as Israel was getting pummelled. They thought their initial blitzkrieg on prominent Iranian personnel in science and the military would destabilise Iran. They thought wrong.

    Their is no doubt that Iran sustained heavy losses and damage to buildings and infrastructure. But they pretty much had the Israeli population hunkered down in bunkers for days on end. Israel was running out of interceptor missiles. The damage was clearly bad in Israel as evidenced by the media blackout.

    The strikes on nuclear sites by the U.S does not seemed to have significantly set Iran back in terms of it's nuclear potential. If anything the strikes are likely to push Iran on to develop nuclear weapons. Mileikowsky miscalculated and badly.

    If Israel is dumb enough to go again at Iran it will be hammered again this time in worse fashion. The fear of Israel being attacked again will put alot of would be investors off helping Israel repair damaged infrastructure and economic assets. People are fleeing to the likes of Cyprus.

    The psychological damage caused to the Israelis by Iran's retaliation cannot be underestimated. The regime in Israel is rotten as evidenced by the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Israel will never be the same and it's very future is now on the line.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,933 ✭✭✭Homelander


    It would be a mistake to assume that certain actions negate hostile stances.

    Nazi Germany and the USSR were allies right up until June 22nd 1941 and trade flowed both ways.

    Israel supplied Iran because it, at the time, benefited Israel who considered Iraq a bigger threat.

    Iran has never been an "age old enemy" of Israel. The opposite is true, Iran made Israel enemy number one after the revolution, but prior to that Israel had very little interest in Iran and was more concerned with its immediate neighbors.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,159 ✭✭✭Bogey Lowenstein
    That must be Nigel with the brie...


    USSR and Germany were never true allies though: Hitler and Stalin hated each other and they were both just buying time and readying their armies to invade each other.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,159 ✭✭✭Bogey Lowenstein
    That must be Nigel with the brie...


    Another myth that is being pushed a lot is that Iran want to slaughter all jews. If that is true how come there has been a jewish community in Iran for thousands of years.

    They are protected under law as a religious minority and have a permanent seat in parliament.

    Israel lost face a while back when they publically invited them all to move to their rightful homeland and they said no thanks we would rather stay here, it is safer.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,147 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    10's of thousands of missiles and projectiles have been fired at the general populace of one particular country since the early 2000's. The vast majority of which by proxies supported directly by Iran

    One of those proxies is an illicit army of almost 100,000 militants, funded almost entirely by Iran, whose chief goal is the elimination of that particular country

    Almost every ballistic missile Iran has is pointed at that particular country and not at military bases, as we've just seen

    Khamenei is the supreme leader, overseeing all this. For someone who purportedly doesn't want to kill the civilians of that particular country he sure does expend a lot of effort attempting to do nothing but.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,159 ✭✭✭Bogey Lowenstein
    That must be Nigel with the brie...


    How many people have been killed by those tens of thousands of missiles do you know?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 36,957 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    A country having the ability to down projectiles fired at them doesn't negate the action of the missiles being fired.

    If I throw a rock at your windows and you actually have a protective screen in front of them, does that make my rock throwing okay?



Advertisement