Israel’s defense minister warned Saturday that “Tehran will burn” if Iran continues firing missiles, as the two countries traded blows a day after Israel launched a blistering surprise attack on Iranian nuclear and military sites, killing several top generals.
Israel’s military said the strikes also killed nine senior scientists and experts involved in Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s U.N. ambassador said 78 people were killed and more than 320 wounded.
Iran retaliated by launching waves of drones and ballistic missiles at Israel, where explosions lit the night skies over Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and shook buildings. The Israeli military urged civilians, already rattled by 20 months of war in Gaza sparked by Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, to head to shelter for hours. Health officials said three people were killed and dozens wounded.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mg7kx2d45o
You can support Iran, their right to nuclear weapons (then deal with the inevitable proliferation to SA), right to self defense and even the influence it seeks as the leader of the middle east, but please don’t be naive or play others for fools.
This makes sense. I recall thinking after Israel’s previous attack and dismantling Hezbollah that if I were the Ayatollah, I’d now be going full speed towards a nuclear weapon test, as that’s the only thing that can secure my regime’s survival and by extension the stability of the country (in whatever state it exists). After the last attack, that pressure is that much higher.
It’s a great tool to blackmail other nuclear powers to be responsible for your own state’s stability against your own fuckups e.g. Pakistan, fall of the USSR and Ukraine, NKorea, putin now. Nobody wants a messy state collapse, they can’t look away and risk losing nukes or letting them fall in the wrong hands.
Which on the whole I think is a good thing since we’ve seen that significant instability often affects most of us.
Iran should if they so desire have weapons too. After all, the US and Israel do. Two nations who are doing crimes live in front of our eyes.
For the record, pun intended, “confidential report” means “no evidence.” Remember the Gulf of Tonkin?
There is no such thing as a preemptive strike when Israel has no articulated reason to believe Iran was going to harm them. Iran, by rights written in that silly UN, has the RIGHT to strike back defending itself.
Israel wants a larger war because that gaslights the greater nations into conflict, destroys more working class people, and brings about greater profit for Israel’s owners.
All nations are bad. Do not get that wrong.
But Israel, not even truly a nation, is a fucking terrorist organization.
Sure, but don’t pretend it’s just for civilian nuclear power, that’s all.
A) There is no second source verifiable proof it’s for weapons. Only “super secret promises of proof” by the same people that printed claims hamas has bunkers under hospitals.
B) They should have weapons. After all, Israel does.
C) There have been no indications of testing, something verifiable and easily seen, something necessary to make weapons.
If you think they should have the weapons, why are you so reluctant to believe that they are trying to build them? Pick a lane:
A) Iran would never attempt to build nuclear weapons.
B) Iran has a duty to build nuclear weapons.
PS: btw, I haven’t made my mind up on whether they should have the right to them or not (if Pakistan/Israel can have them, these guys can too I guess, but that’s too late to fix now), but I bet that all UNSC members and most countries in the UN breathed a sigh of relief at what Israel did (it’s just less shit to deal with), even if it was illegal and everyone did their usual theatric posturing for and against the attack.
I think both can be true. It start with one, then US withdraw from an agreement, thanks to Trump, and now trust in the US government specifically after the escalated genocide in Gaza, will be down and they have to Build it to protect themselves.
You can’t hold both at the same time, especially as they’re arguing that Iran couldn’t possibly be building nukes at this point by suggesting that the BBC reference to the report must be false. What you are saying is that Iran is justified in switching from A to B, which I can understand.
Why do you mention “duty”? there is no obligation. I simply mean that they are a state capable of deciding their own path.
How does that describe duty in the form of obligation?
e.g. “You should pick up the trash.”