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

19798100102103108

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,739 ✭✭✭blue note


    It makes an enormous difference. Pushing someone into a swimming pool Vs off a roof - they're both pushes. But not at all the same.



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


    The greatest threat to Israel is within in the shape of Zionism. They have weaponised the holocaust to get away with flouting international law, to brutally oppress the native people of the land their country was created on. The Zionists want an ethnically pure Jewish state from the river to the sea hence the building of illegal settlements on Palestinian land. The axing of the Golan Heights and Gaza being kept as an open air prison which the Israeli's have now razed.

    The world while rightly condemning the Hamas attack of October 7th can at the same time condemn a genocide which has been perpetrated in retaliation. Israeli's are leaving the country and this has escalated after Iran hammered it with missiles. Once people start leaving en masse then a colonial settler experiment is in live danger.

    The common consensus from commentators like Ilan Pappe, Gideon Levy and Alon Mizrahi is that the Israeli population, with exceptions I'm sure, but as a vast majority see Palestinians as sub human. This is all the more tragic given the Holocaust.

    The Zionist idyll of a Western style country with impenetrable defence in the M/East has been shattered by Iranian missiles. Hopefully in my lifetime we see a Palestine from the river to the sea where Israeli's, free of Zionist ideology, can live in peace along side the natives of the land equal before the law.



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


    The intent of pushing someone into a swimming pool is not to kill them.

    The intent of firing missiles at a city is to kill people in the city.

    Whether they can shoot down said missiles or not doesn't change the intent to kill.



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


    Good point - of course it doesn't. I would call the Gards and show them my cctv footage of you throwing rocks at my windows.

    However, if you threw rocks at my windows, I wouldn't riddle you with bullets. Or rather, if I did, I'd fully expect a rather long cooling off period in Mountjoy.



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


    Certainly wouldn't make throwing rocks at your window OK....but if you'd spent the last few nights firing boulders through the windows of your neighbours, I'd probably be a bit shocked that you expect everyone to ignore that while condemning the pebble thrown at yours....



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,833 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,625 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    The Trump administration did not deny the existence of the intercepted messages, but strongly disagreed with the conclusions reached by the Iranians. The White House questioned their ability to assess the extent of the damage.

    Basically any intel that says the Iranian nuclear program wasn't obliterated, Trump will disagree with!

    I see the IAEA believes Iran can restart enriching uranium within a few months. Then we have a admission to US senators that the US didn't use bunker busters on the Isfahan site because it was too deep (they used cruise missiles to destroy the above ground structures). They also believe it stores about 60% of Iran's enriched uranium.

    The world is less safe now because of the US strikes. I simply cannot see why Iran would not pursue a nuke now.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,269 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Nazi Germany and the USSR were allies

    No they weren't.

    The non aggression pact merely suited both sides from a cynical point of view. But there was nothing "allied" about it because the goals of each nation were entirely different. Neither side trusted one another, they were diametrically opposed, and the only beneficial outcome to either country was the ability to move a future war front to foreign soil in in Poland. Both sides knew that there was a conflict in their near futures. For the Germans, the non aggression pact of 1939 allowed them to draw up contingency plans should the west declare war and it also split a burgeoning entente between the Soviet Union, France and Britain*. For the Soviet Union it allowed them the space to start modernising their military in the inevitable event of a German invasion, which was something that Hitler had been talking about since the 20's. Unfortunately for them, Hitler unleashed Barbarossa in 1941 before they Soviets had time to truly revamp their military.

    *arguably, a master stroke by Hitler.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 871 ✭✭✭I.am.Putins.raging.bile.duct


    Consider migrating to Blusky for your posts…

    https://bsky.app/profile/maks23.bsky.social/post/3lsrmrwy4722b



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,607 ✭✭✭thereiver


    trump lives in his own world not necessarily connected to reality if something does not make him look good he simply ignores it .experts have said the bombing of nuclear facilitys has put back Iran's nuclear program by 9 months I read an article it says Mossad has many agents u Iran they know the layout of all military buildings and buildings used to make missiles . If you look at the war in Ukraine. It shows drones have become more powerful and can cause more damage Israel had to agree to a ceasefire it is running out of munitions .



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,332 ✭✭✭amandstu


    That is my takeaway too.Don't they say if you want to shoot the king to make sure you actually kill him first time?

    I feel that Iran (the ruling class) were likely going for a nuclear weapon before they were attacked but I can't know that.

    I think Israel may genuinely have thought this was their last chance to head them off.

    They rolled the dice and it looks like this has been a fail as Iran seems to have no shortage of time to restart.(with the benefit of experience and after a deadly purge of the Mossad assets)

    Israel the US and probably everyone else see no benefit in or possibility of trying to engineer a regime change and so I wonder whether the Iranian regime may not actually be pleased overall with the result if it gives them an extra 10 years in power to fùck over their own people and keep their external enemies in a state of anxiety.

    The only silver lining may be that it shows Trump up again.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭lumphammer2


    Israel and their paranoid attitude have locked themselves into a vicious circle ….. they assumed everyone was out to get them ….. then went to fight with everyone …. and now everyone is actually out to get rid of their regime esp Netanyahu …… someone should have called halt to what they were at back in late 2023 ….. but they didn't ….. only the complete reform of the Israeli regime with no Netanyahu/far right in it can start things back ….. but this is unlikely …..

    The same regime change mistake is made over and over ….. in 2003 it was Iraq and Saddam ….. then it was Gaza and Hamas and now the Republic government of Iran ….. handpicking some ex pat to be a puppet does not wash with the people of any of these countries as Iraq proved ….. no one in Iran wants the MeK and no one in Gaza will want an Israeli puppet imposed after all the bloodshed ….. this will take years to fix if it ever will be …. even if Israeli gets a moderate govt the animosity will remain ….. the poor decisions to escalate by bloodthirsty Netanyahu were made and they are easier to make than unmake ……



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,415 ✭✭✭sock.rocker*


    I personally think the chances of a ground invasion of Iran are rising by the day. To me, it seems like Trump and Bibi need it politically, and the bunker buster bombs not being effective enough is their war cry.

    Save boards.ie by subscribing:

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419316/the-boards-ie-subscription



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 768 ✭✭✭Randycove




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,636 ✭✭✭brickster69


    How are they going to invade Iran, have you seen the place it's like a fortress. Besides you can't just go around invading countries for nothing, it would be breaking international law ….. again, specially seen as Trump told the world he obliterated everything

    Macron seems eager to get to negotiations for some reason and also bringing up Iran's ballistic missiles now. Probably worried about them increasing the range of new ones and will be threatening them with sanctions next no doubt.

    "if you get on the wrong train, get off at the nearest station, the longer it takes you to get off, the more expensive the return trip will be."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,543 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    It would be for the enrichment of weapons grade material. It would stand up legally better than whatever russia has been failing at during the past quarter decade or so in various locations (Not that I agree with it, but your pearl clutching on legality is hyper hypocritical).

    From an invasion perspective, air superiority would happen quickly and be incessant, its difficult to stop advances from underground (but would lend itself to guerrilla tactics).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,415 ✭✭✭sock.rocker*


    They don't have to win the war, or even set out to win it. They just have to be at war. Besides, neither the US or Israel give a toss about international law or their reputations.

    Yes, I am aware Iran is enormous compared to Afghanistan and Iraq, but I think hubris will lead both of these revolting tyrants to do it.

    If Iran clearly still has a nuclear program in the coming months, and they do nothing about it, then what were the strikes for. Is the risk of a nuclear Iran so minor that it only warrants a couple of weeks of strikes and then give up? That's the thinking that will be behind it.

    Save boards.ie by subscribing:

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419316/the-boards-ie-subscription



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


    That all depends on whether Iran was already pursuing a nuke in secret.

    If they were already on the path to a nuclear bomb, at worst there is no change. At best the pursuit has been delayed, and they may have second thoughts given the willingness of the US to get involved.

    Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon would be the biggest new threat to the world since the Russian annexation of Crimea.



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


    The chances of a ground invasion of Iran are precisely zero.

    It is impossible to invade because of geographical features, the mountains and the desert.

    Iran/Persia has an interesting history. On occasion, it has expanded beyond its natural borders and conquered neighbouring countries, the Persian Empire being the biggest examples, but in the end, it has always been pushed back and nobody has made a successful invasion across the mountains. Iraq was the last to try and also failed.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭thatsdaft


    Besides you can't just go around invading countries for nothing, it would be breaking international law

    Ahahahahahah 🤣 Thanks I needed a good laugh, irony is strong there

    Here we have Trump pointing out that Putin is planning more illegal invasions not content with starting a war in its fourth year that killed millions



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,415 ✭✭✭sock.rocker*


    You are approaching this from the angle of rational acts of war. I am approaching it from the political situation in Israel and the US. I think the apparent failed attempt at destroying Iran's nuclear program significantly increases the chances of American troops being the ground in some manner to try and directly deal with the nuclear sites.

    Save boards.ie by subscribing:

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419316/the-boards-ie-subscription



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,625 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    There's zero evidence Iran had a weapons program. All the intel seems to back that up, apart from Trump to went with his gut feelings over his own intelligence.

    We now have Iran pulling out of the IAEA so there will be zero monitoring, there's zero intel on where or what is left of the Iranian 60% enriched uranium and uncertainty about how extensive the damage done to the Iranian nuclear program was.

    If Iran want to pursue a weapon now (they would be crazy not to), then it will be on an accelerated timeline.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,320 ✭✭✭thomil


    Not a chance, the US military are realists above all. But let’s look at it more closely.

    In addition to its size, Iran also sports pretty hostile geography of the type that’ll make it extremely hard for a ground invasion. Most of Iran’s western and southern border is made up of the Zagros mountains, which rise up to 4400 metres at their highest peak and cover the border with Turkey as well as most of the border with Iraq and the coast along the Persian Gulf. Where the Zagros mountains slowly peter out on Iran’s eastern borders, they are seamlessly replaced by the Lut desert, which covers the border region with Pakistan and Afghanistan. In the north, this desert borders on the Kopet Dag and Alborz mountain ranges, which run along Iran’s entire northern border. The country is almost literally walled in by mountains, which make large-scale ground movements difficult whilst at the same time giving a significant advantage to the defenders.

    To make matters worse, even the US’s closest “partners” in the region, Turkey and Iraq, would not allow themselves to be a staging area for a ground invasion. Whilst neither are particularly fond of Tehran, indeed, Turkey ist trying to position itself as a regional hegemon at the expense of Iran, they also don’t want to see that country destabilised. Invading from Pakistan is equally unrealistic, they too don’t want to see a power vacuum form in Iran, they saw what happened in Iraq post 2003. In addition, Islamabad has more than enough on its plate with keeping their own country form tearing themselves apart. We can rule out any US invasion from the north, as a) none of the governments in those areas will agree to act as a staging area and b) I can’t see how Washington could move any significant ground forces there in the first place.

    This leaves an amphibious assault as the only option for the US. At first glance, this might not seem too bad, the country’s southern coastline is pretty extensive, running from Abadan on the Shatt al Arab to the border with Pakistan. However, much of this coast runs along the Persian Gulf and whilst the the US Navy is intimately familiar with that body of water at this point, it is a geographically constrained area with massive amounts of civilian traffic and only one point of access, the Strait of Hormuz. To make matters worse for any erstwhile attacker, Iran’s main naval base at Bandar Abbas sits right on the Strait of Hormuz. This leaves the “open ocean” of the Gulf of Oman as the only suitable sea area for an amphibious assault. Putting a landing force ashore there is doable, and additional equipment can be brought in pretty easily from the prepositioned stocks at Diego Garcia, but unfortunately, this landing area is about as far away from Iran’s political and economic centres as you can get. It’s basically the Donegal of Iran. Any force landed there would have to fight its way through hundreds of kilometres of mountains and deserts, in a country with a well-established national identity no less, to get anywhere important.

    Regardless of the available options, the manpower required would be eye watering, significantly weakening the US’s position in other areas such as SE Asia, something Beijing would be only too happy to exploit in order to deal with Taiwan. In other words, it’s just not going to happen. Ongoing air strikes? Possibly. An actual invasion? Nope!

    Good luck trying to figure me out. I haven't managed that myself yet!



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


    There is a chance of a Mossad special operation with logistical support from the US against a particular targetted site, but there is zero chance of a conventional ground invasion which is your original claim.



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


    It is only zero evidence if you dismiss the claims of the Israelies and the Trump Administration as well as the caveats from the IAEA. Here is the BBC on this:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn840275p5yo

    "However, he noted that the IAEA's latest quarterly report released in late May warned that Iran had amassed enough uranium enriched up to 60% purity - a short, technical step away from weapons grade, or 90% - to potentially make nine nuclear bombs. That was "a source of legitimate concern", he said.

    Grossi also said the agency could not provide assurance that the Iranian nuclear programme was exclusively peaceful because Iran was not complying with its investigation into man-made uranium particles discovered by inspectors at three undeclared nuclear sites."

    That isn't zero evidence. It may not be clear and compelling evidence, but it isn't zero either. It also only relies on public available evidence. It would be naive to think that the US and Israeli governments have published all their evidence.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,415 ✭✭✭sock.rocker*


    I didn't mean a la Vietnam. It was a miswording.

    Interesting post, Thomil.

    Save boards.ie by subscribing:

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419316/the-boards-ie-subscription



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,332 ✭✭✭amandstu


    What about repeated air strikes along the lines of this last one?

    Can they keep the genie in the box " as it were?

    Will their intelligence ( humint) degrade quite quickly now as the Iranian regime will crack down quite mercilessly on any sources of leaks real or paranoidly suspected?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,625 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    Hang on a second.... A claim is not evidence. The Israeli's claimed Iran was months away from a nuke multiple times over the past decades.

    The Trump administration's own intelligence stated that Iran were not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. Trump dismissed that and went with his gut.

    That's all zero evidence, it's claims and gut feelings.

    Evidence of 60% enriched uranium is not evidence of a nuclear weapons program.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,332 ✭✭✭amandstu


    What would it be evidence of.? Nuclear blackmail without the nukes?

    I heard 60% was 99% of the way to full enrichment....



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,415 ✭✭✭sock.rocker*


    "Weeks away" or "Months away" is an abuse of the English language in order to make it sound like your enemy will have those things in weeks or months. It just means that if they continued onto their next step now today, it would take weeks or months to do whatever is being talked about.

    It's like me saying I am minutes away from murdering my neighbour. Like that is completely fine if I started right now and did that, but there is no indication or evidence I am going to do that.

    Save boards.ie by subscribing:

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419316/the-boards-ie-subscription



Advertisement