Public opinion is highly divided on a potential military conflict between Israel and Iran. While skepticism exists about a full-scale war due to logistical challenges and costs, there's significant concern about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Some advocate for decisive military action to prevent nuclear acquisition, while others emphasize diplomacy and worry about regional stability and global trade implications.

Israel

Iran

I feel like breaking the nuclear taboo is far less likely than this wargame would suggest. Any use of nuclear weapons would be catastropic to global stability.

Beny1995

FurballPoS

&gt;The game starts in 2027 with Israeli intelligence reports that Iran is mating nuclear warheads to its long-range missiles. This prompts Israel to ask Washington to collaborate in a conventional military strike targeting key Iranian nuclear facilities and missile bases. Not wanting to be drawn into a major war with Iran, the United States demurs and instead offers Israel US standoff hypersonic missiles.  
&gt;  
&gt;Israel uses these to target Iran’s key nuclear and missile sites. Almost immediately, Tehran’s proxies—Hezbollah, and Houthi rebels—respond with devastating conventional missile strikes against Israel. These attacks kill at least as many Israelis as during the October 7, 2023, Hamas raid. In response, Israel attempts to preempt further proxy military strikes by launching aerial strikes against proxy military strongholds. These attacks kill more than 2,000 Arabs.  
&gt;  
&gt;Iran responds directly and takes advantage of the Israeli missile defenses being now degraded to strike key Israeli nuclear and government defense ministry buildings in Tel Aviv, killing more Israeli civilians. At the same time, Iran also announces that it has withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), thereby signaling its readiness to use nuclear weapons.  
&gt;  
&gt;Israeli intelligence then learns that Israel’s previous conventional strikes against Iranian nuclear and missile sites failed to retard Iran’s integration of nuclear warheads with its missiles. When Israel shares this information with US officials and again asks them to approve a joint US-Israeli follow-on raid, Washington only offers “continued assistance” and tells Israel it should stop attacking Iran lest the fighting escalates to a nuclear exchange.  
&gt;  
&gt;Israel swallows hard. Sensing that it now is isolated and that further Israeli conventional strikes are unlikely to scotch an Iranian nuclear strike, Israel’s prime minister decides attacking Iran with nuclear weapons is Israel’s only option. After consulting his war cabinet, he approves a non-lethal nuclear demonstration detonation over a remote location in Iran combined with conventional strikes against main Iranian nuclear facilities and military sites. Israel also launches cyber-attacks against Iran’s military communications networks and uses its back channels to make a private diplomatic appeal to Tehran to stand down further offensive action against Israel.  
&gt;  
&gt;Israel’s actions, however, fail to bend Iran’s will to continue to wage war. Worse, the United States now urges Israel to stand down. Isolated and desperate, Israel concludes it has no choice:  It launches a “precision” follow-on nuclear strike of 50 weapons against 25 Iranian military targets (including Russian-manned air defense sites). The aim is to cripple Iranian offensive forces and perhaps induce enough chaos to prompt the Iranian revolutionary regime to collapse. Almost immediately after the Israeli strike, however, Iran launches a nuclear attack of its own against an Israeli air base where American military are present.  
&gt;  
&gt;With this move, the game ends.  
&gt;  
&gt;Many critical questions remain unanswered. Would Israel or Iran conduct further nuclear strikes? Would Israel target Tehran with nuclear weapons? And vice versa, would Iran target Tel Aviv with nuclear arms? Would Russia or the United States be drawn into the war?

SessionGloomy

Of course.  Nuclear is the only equalizer.

MtnMaiden

The computers don’t count the human equation, people will hesitate if they know they will be ash if they launch.

Nickblove

Can somebody explain to me how exactly these war games work? Like who is making the decisions in this game? A computer? Apologies if I sound ignorant. Also, is there a book filled with these types of scenarios because I absolutely love reading about it.

2GirlfriendsIsCooler

I read better Warhammer40k game reports...

The title should be: American gamers like to use nukes when playing as Israel

porn0f1sh

If I was Israel I would have Mecca and Medina targeted and say they are the first shot if they got nuked.

Rainbow334dr

I would have no problem with Israel nuking Iran back into the stone age (not very far for them at this point).

Someone needs to put a stop to aggressive Islamic radicalism on a national level.

No_Pressure_1039


Comment guidelines:

Please do:

    * Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles, 
    * Leave a submission statement that justifies the legitimacy or importance of what you are submitting,
    * Be curious not judgmental,
    * Be polite and civil,
    * Use the original title of the work you are linking to,
    * Use capitalization,
    * Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,
    * Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says,
    * Ask questions in the megathread, and not as a self post,
    * Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,
    * Write posts and comments with some decorum.

 Please do not:

    * Use memes, emojis or swearing excessively. This is not NCD,
    * Start fights with other commenters,
    * Make it personal, 
    * Try to out someone,
    * Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section,
    * Answer or respond directly to the title of an article,
    * Submit news updates, or procurement events/sales of defense equipment.

    Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules. 
    
 Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, 
 leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Iran is not an irrational actor. Stopped reading there

OlivencaENossa

Calling Iran irrational for a probing missile attack to study defence systems and tactics for what assets are important makes no sense to me. I’m sorry but you are wrong. This is a good tactical decision for them when seeing their proxies are losing. When the proxies go to sleep the true beast is going to wake up. They saw what they expected, protecting civilian infrastructure and evacuations.

Unhappy-Ad9690

Woah when did the Iranian propaganda ministry get in here with takes like “Iran is not a sponsor of state terror groups” and “Iran is the most measured actor of the Middle East” immediately after they launch rockets and sponsor a Hamas mass death squad into Israel? Like there is nuance where Israel and Iran both have problems and there is straight up Iranian propaganda.

Brichess

What's currently happening is what war with Iran looks like.

You have a well armed proxy terrorist group who is highly motivated to target a particular opponent and they will target international trade, especially oil.

Basically if Iran ever has a war with Saudi Arabia it'll look just like what's going on right now but with different groups launching the rockets and drones. 

&amp;#x200B;

Given Iran's location you won't see a land war with tanks and helicopters like the Iran/Iraq war had, since their main geopolitical rivals are Israel and Saudi Arabia.

donniedarko5555

Probably not. As embarrassing as it was for Iran, they still aren't really in any position for there to be a war. Also, there is one entire Iraq and a bit of Jordan in between Iran and Israel. Even if they were really itching to fight, they just can't. I'd expect some lukewarm mild retaliation as a response.

AKidNamedGoobins

As others already noted, any military escalation will likely be highly limited in nature. There is extensive evidence to suggest any forthcoming Israeli incursion into Lebanon will be limited to strategic geopolitical targets such as the Litani River reminiscent of the 1980 Lebanese Civil War. 

This will not be conventional warfare as you allude to; it will almost certainly (https://www.csis.org/analysis/coming-conflict-hezbollah) be asymmetric in nature, with a primary purpose to mitigate any imminent threat posed by Hezbollah (an Iranian proxy).

[deleted]

I think an all out war in Lebanon with Hezbollah is more likely given the upcoming evacuation operations some countries (such as UK) are planning

Ok_Canary3870

A war is already ongoing. 


The question is what happens next in the war. Neither really have the ability to engage the other in a ground operation so a full scale conventional war isn't directly possible. 


That said... The war could escalate in other ways. 

Golda_M

The problem is that they’re both very far away from each other so having a sustaining war that is very very costly over Hamas leader death is unlikely. Israel already overextended and US and UK will provide security aid over airspaces over Jordan and Israel. So a long war over this issue is no at the moment but a short term retaliation is a possibility by Iran still. 

Altruism7

There's been a shadow war for decades. The only question is how hot it gets now that it's out of the shadow.

But the reality is that Israel has no motivation to occupy Iran, and Iran hasn't got the ability to move an army into Israel. Israel's neighbouring countries don't trust Iran either, so even if Iran wanted a Muslim coalition to move against Israel like in the past, it won't happen. Despite Turkiye's rhetoric, it's unlikely they would join Iran at the cost of upsetting NATO allies.

So worst case scenario: Iran does something really nasty \[like a dirty bomb\] and Israel decapitates Iran's leadership. This means freedom for Iran's urban population, but swaths of territory goes up for grabs.

ZeinTheLight

Iran’s proxies have been firing rockets and artillery at Israel for months, often with Iran’s intelligence and direction.  Iran recently launched 300 missiles and drones at Israel, and will probably do something similar, or bigger, again.  Iran and Israel are already at war.

Titty_Slicer_5000

They are at war, just not directly. As others have said, a full-scale direct conflict between them would be difficult given the fact that they don’t border each other. Instead, I would guess the retaliation will be more missile and drone strikes from Iran and all its proxies, as well as a potential offensive from Hezbollah (if not, then just more aerial strikes from them too).

PrometheanSwing

It could be.

It all depends on what the result of the incoming attack by iran would be. Any major damage or casualties would push israel for retaliatory strikes against Iran. And anything iran can do israel can do much better. Any attack by Israel will be more destructive and it can lead to a full blown regional war.

At the end of the day its all about showing who the big dog in the area is. Is it Israel? Is it iran? Israel bombed all Iran proxy in the area . Iran see that and looks weak because they dont do anything on the surface.

EfficiencyNo1396

Iran is bluffing, they know very well that they have too much to lose from a war with Israel.

aWhiteWildLion

Doubtful.  Israel assassinated a Hamas leader after a direct Hamas attack on Israel and Israeli civilians, so he's a fair target.  Iran's problem is that it was done in Iran, which embarrasses the current Islamic Republic of Iran government and makes them look and feel weak, so they want to retaliate in a way that they think shows they are not weak to Iranians without getting bogged down in anything too drawn out.

Additionally, Iran doesn't really have the ability to attack Israel, logistically speaking.  Their Air Force is inferior to Israel's, land logistics would be a nightmare, and the US/West supports Israel at sea and air, so they would look even weaker if they tried to go to war with Israel, which is the very thing they're trying to avoid.

It seems likely, given this story from today: https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-rebuffs-calls-for-restraint-in-its-response-to-killing-of-hamas-leader-309314e7

FeydSeswatha982

I suspect there will be a war. 

Prediction: Iran retaliates with missiles hitting Israel from Iran, Yemen, Gaza and Lebanon. Israel retaliates to the retaliation and hits Iran directly and more significantly than before. Open war breaks out between Israel and Iran.

Israel's aims will be pushing Hezbollah back and hitting Iran's nuclear programme. Once those aims are achieved, Israel will stop. 

Iran and Hezbollah's aims are the destruction of Israel, that isn't going to happen without them destroying themselves as well so for them it is about biding their their time until a better opportunity presents itself. However I think they have now put something in motion that won't be stopped.

pigeon888

Reditate

Neither have anything resembling expeditionary warfare capability. They don’t have the Navy to park off the others coast, so that means going overland. But that means going through Syria and Iraq either way.

Israel would probably get bogged down in full conflict with Syria then Iraq.

Iran *might* be able to convince Syria or Iraq or both to let them pass through unharmed (this is a VERY BIG “maybe” though, frankly most would consider it inconceivable), but even if they did they’d have to protect their supply lines from Israeli air power. The F35 can drop plenty of ordinance on supply convoys passing through open desert.

Overall, open war would require all the countries in the region to allow Iran to base from them, and Israel would still have a firepower advantage.

If Iran does anything, it’s going to be to unleash it’s paramilitary forces (which will still be unable to beat Israel in open combat) and Israel will strike back with air power like usual.

Electronic_Ad5481

Probably not now but it's inevitable. Islamic regime sees destroying Israel as a very fundamental diety, if Israel doesn't start it, it'll 100% happen when islamic regime feels confident enough for it.

AryanNATOenjoyer

I don't understand why everybody is reasoning here that war won't break out because they can't reach each other. Wars don't always have to end with the occupation of your enemies capital. We have every reason to believe that Iran's retaliation will be severe and supported by all their proxies. As soon as Iron Dome gets overwhelmed, very likely in my opinion, the pressure to destroy Hezbollah will be unbearable for Netanyahu and Gallant. I expect all proxies to be destroyed by Israel and the US but I think an invasion of Iran is rather unlikely. Not for the geographie though, History has shown from time and time again that the country is very invadable, it won't because the US is tired of fighting in deserts.

TastyTestikel

It is almost certain at this point. Tomorrow we will see

Responsible_Routine6

It will. As we speak, they've reported that Iran and Hezbollah will attack Israel within 24 hours. It's not a question of if but rather when and where precisely.

KLei2020

No, there will be no "big" war.
Both state systems (both Israel and Iran) are built on the fact that constant external tension is needed in order to consolidate their voters, but not an active war. Otherwise, it may end in a strong weakening, or, conversely, a triumph, and the system will need to be changed. 
It's like match-fixing in football, but only more bloody and cynical. 

Any-Original-6113

A full on war is unlikely. The two nations do not share a border and neither has the logistical means to project troops in a capacity to allow a formal ground war in either direction. Worst case scenario, they both send air strikes at each other or engage in an indirect “shadow war” such as what the US is currently doing to Russia through Ukraine.

shortstop803

Emergency_Evening_63

None of them can wage a real war as they are unable to land an army on the enemy's territory. All they can do is bombard each other with missiles and air strikes and fight a proxy wars.

Ultimately, such a "war" would be very costly for both sides with no desirable outcome, which makes it unlikely.

Major_Wayland

If you think a war between the global west and an Iran-led holy army of stupid fanatics is not exactly what is already going on for a long time then I don’t know what to tell you

kayama57

They already are at war with Iran, they're just fighting a proxy war, hezbollah, hamas, houthis/yemen, groups that have attacked Israel recently are all Iran proxies. So you can basically say they are already at war with Israel.

Masterpiece9839

I don't think so. Such a war would have to be fought by Hezbollah which I think is much more of an autonomous gorup thna some assume.  Both sides would have to pay a very high price for all out war and therefore I think they will avoid it at all costs. Israel would likely to be able to at least drive them back over the river, if not severely crippling them in a ground war but Hezbollah with its missiles could do devastating damage to Israel's civilian and military infrastructure.

DrKaasBaas

I don't think it's going to escalate unless the US has its hands forced elsewhere.

I have been thinking about Iran's potential targets, and I reach two possibilities. One, a high ranking military general and Two, a highly defensed yet low-medium profile target. Actually the two are similar. Generals are well protected but they have to visit the frontline frequently. It's going to induce a higher response and it's more difficult to kill say a high ranking intelligence officer or politician.

Basically I think Iran will try to tell Israel that, we can hit well protected targets if we really want, but we would like you to spin it as casualty so your people don't ask for a severe retaliation.

levelworm

As much as it scares me to say this, but yes. They were already at war, but now things are gonna only get more ugly and more intense.

Israel has made it clear that if they are directly attacked by Iran, they will respond even more harshly.

And also, Israel is likely going to as a result bomb the s—t out of the nuclear facilities and arms factories before they can even get a chance to do so.

Class_of_22

There is already a war between Israel and Iran, albeit not a conventional one.

Dean_46

Not if it is up to Iran, they are quite happy let Israel self-destruct. You should be quite stupid to interrupt things when Israel is stuck in Gaza with no way out, being investigated by ICC and ICJ if they are running a genocide, while Israelis are debating whether sodomizing Palestinians is lawful.

The more important question is if Israel could force a war with Iran and dragging US into that.

siali

Who knows. It could spin out of control, it may not.

jim_jiminy

Just like last time (a few months ago), they will throw a few missiles at each other.

4tran13

WW3 is a collection of simultaneous proxy wars, and electronic warfare. Its happening already.

nickoaverdnac

There’s an undeclared war going on anyway. I don‘t really see what Iran might gain by ramping it up to a formal war. If Iran declares formal war then Israel will go “cheers, take this” and they will knock out the Iranian leadership, their airfields, their ports and their oil depots all within the first 6 hours. The Iranian regime will cease to exist, and the country will implode into chaos. The Iranian regime knows this. They have nothing to gain from declaring war. 

So the situation will probably carry on as it is right now, by proxies.

The only problem I see is whether the Iranian regime might think it is going to collapse anyway. If - *if* - Tehran thinks its doom is inevitable then it might think, “let’s roll the dice and gamble everything, because we‘re losing anyway.“ So they might launch everything they have in one go, and damn the consequences. A sort of a scorched earth thing.

Newstapler

The question for Israel is how to get the US to invade Iran I guess. Otherwise they'll probably try to fight Hesbollah. It sucks people don't deserve to die...

PsyX99

cheatertorn

Option 1) Iran might have Nukes and delivery system provided by Russia. I can see this rational background for  iran to go all out war with Israel &amp;US.

2) Other scenario will be invasion from multiple points in 100k+ no. militia with arm combined with huge no. Of lone wolf attack in isreal. 

Any Other options does not nurture interest of any side that will be just face save as happened in April.

DraftOk532

Anything resembling bigotry against Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Palestians, Israelis, etc. or violence against civilians is not going to last long, nor will your time here.

If you have to ask if it crosses a line, assume it crosses a line. Please see our guidelines for [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/) for more information.


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Well, I'd love to answer your question, but first.. I mean, shit, this evidence is pretty damning; everything is completely consistent with the preparation of a military invasion. This isn't just a run-of-the-mill bombing operation being prepared, it looks like they're ferrying in troops and other war material. Thanks for providing those sources. I definitely knew about tensions, but I hadn't seen any tangible evidence that a military escalation might be in preparation; not even any posts with questionable sources left-wingers like to post on Reddit talked about this.

^ *Edit to the above paragraph: I was incorrect about this statement above. It does infact appear to be merely a limited strike, and likely not a military invasion as indicated by u/metoo77432, I had unfortunately jumped the gun*

Second, yes and no, this is definitely something I'm sure Neoconservatives would be somewhat satisfied with conceptually. However, this potential course of action appears to be a matter of nationalism rather than anything that really matches the Neoconservative long-term 'Globalist' ends, so I doubt this will bring about a return of Neoconservatism.

DistinctAd3848

I think this is posturing to make Iran want to come to the table after they rejected direct negotiations. But if engage in an offensive war against Iran, nobody in this admin ever gets my vote again.

jadacuddle

This is one of those issues, that while is “neoconservative”, I also believe is broadly popular across the political spectrum in not only America, but the western world…. I don’t want war, it’s one of the main reasons I voted for Trump, but the Islamic terrorist regime of Iran cannot, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be allowed to obtain nukes. 

I personally am 100% on board with CONVENTIONALLY(when people talk about this they’re talking nukes, I am not) turning their entire military infrastructure into glass. I’m heavily against boots on the ground though.

tybaby00007

Not necessarily. Iran getting a nuclear weapon isn't an option. Taking military action to prevent it from happening doesn't necessarily lead to regime change discussions, long term occupation, etc.

MadGobot

I get the sense this is more like Operations *Praying Mantis* and *Nimble Archer*.

The Iranians and Houthis had to realize that attacking tankers would provoke the dragon.

SomeGoogleUser

***"Neoconservatism will always survive wherever evil lurks in the hearts of men...."*** Tucker Carlson, probably 

Strikes on Iran are "might makes right" politics ....in the same vein as shaking Ukraine down for money ( that could have been blocked), or TAs recent Obamaesque failing recent peace talks with Russia that could have forced an easy out to this conflict 😡 .....

Neoconservatives are responsible for much of the bad situation that America is in now and has been over the past 25 years..... their advocacy for intervention is maligned by those seeking restraint, non-intervention.  However, this intervention is not wholly neocon - nor has the administration or the MAGA movement been wholly non-interventionist....

(neocons and those similar to them voted for Trump, except for the most RINO, doctrinaire, and Trump-deranged corners of their movement,  perhaps). The regime in Iran has proven a hostile actor to American  interests, and one that many conservatives would like to see combatted

mtmag_dev52

\&gt;Pentagon is rolling out military orders to intensify the troop buildup

This is inaccurate.  They're talking about air force assets (squadrons) and a carrier strike group (navy).  No army, no marines, i.e. no 'troop buildup', no 'invasion'.

metoo77432

Personally I've never bought into the definition of 'neoconservative'.  IMHO Biden and Hillary are more  neocons than most Republicans, establishment or MAGA.  GWB just didn't know what the fuck he was doing.

Trump, you do this, you will be Impeached and deservedly so.

Your job is to secure our borders and deport the invaders, not defend other nations by starting unprovoked wars for a small population that hates you, me and the West in general.

Helopilot1776

Iran is a threat to the entire world with nuclear weapons.  Striking Iran is like planting a tree.  The best time was ten years ago.  The second best time is right now.

Either we destroy their nuclear weapons or one will go off in Long Beach harbor.

BoNixsHair

Probably not, but I desperately hope it is. American foreign policy peaked with the George W. Bush administration, and the ascendance of the GOP's isolationist wing (whether in the "we have no reason to care about anything in the Old World" paleocon mindset or the self-defeating "we can never win forever wars" mindset that's crept in from liberalism) is one of my least favorite things about the Trump era.

AdmiralAkbar1

No.  But if they actually do strike Iran then you could maybe make that claim.

B_P_G

What the US B-2 Bomber can accomplish . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9enhyWbOy8

truth-4-sale

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are so back if this goes conventionally hot.

The Kid might get to eat, and I cannot wait to see the combat footage of two Raptors smoking Iran's entire stockpile of fighters.

HLC is gonna have some stuff to talk about if this goes the way I hope it does.

(We've been letting Iran run it's mouth about how inferior we are for many years too long, we need to make an example out of them, or SOMEONE connected to them to shut them up.)

No_Entertainment2934

No. Iran has repeatedly attacked the US via their houthis terrorists. There's nothing wrong with stopping a country that is directly attacking us from developing nuclear weapons.

CunnyWizard

One day people think Trump is an isolationist, then he’s a neocon interventionist. At some point people are going to have to accept that Trump is America first, which is building back manufacturing and the American economy. This all requires an improved trade environment. Iran is devastating their region, including shipping (**trade**) routes to our *trade* partners. We have seen Rubio and team, improve our situation in the Panama Canal, trade rote, and now America is cleaning up shipping routes in the regions controlled by Iran. And, if there is credible evidence that Iran has nuclear capabilities, those capabilities should be nixed. The west will rejoice if an Iranian nuclear threat was destroyed. In 2025 an all out invasion, with ground troops, would not be required.

SnooFloofs1778

This is just a threat, a precursor to starving them out and cutting off their oil revenue. Oil revenue is how they are funding all the terrorism in the ME

StedeBonnet1

Bombing the Mollah regime and helping liberate Iran would be one of the only good things Trump has done in his second term

Top_Sun_914

"France, along with Germany and the UK (known as the E3), wants to avoid war. They are pushing hard to bring Iran back to the negotiating table and hope to sign a new deal by August 2025. France believes that if talks fail, the U.S. or Israel might strike Iran’s nuclear sites, leading to a wider war in the Middle East."

remiieddit

Question, what is the “deadline” on October 2025? Wasn’t the deal scrapped 7 years ago since Iran was continuing nuclear operations?

FayrayzF

I think it's hard to look at the history of the 21st century and conclude that one shouldn't have nukes. If I was Iran I would want them, giving them up has gone horribly for Ukraine and Libya, after all.

Hectagonal-butt

Iran, their faults and past actions notwithstanding, is purposefully being set up to fail. What we're reading is priming for what has already been decided. There are two carrier strike groups in the gulf and six B-2's in DG, for example. It's not pressure, or a warning, it's a setup.

fluffy_serval

Is that the agreement the US unilaterally withdrew from?

Let me see if I got this right. An agreement that the United states unilaterally abrogated back in 2016 is coming to an end. An agreement that France had been unable to fulfil. One that Israel worked tirelessly to render obsolete with the current POTUS driving in the final nail. I am some how to believe a failure to renew would cause war. A war with whom, might I ask. 

Magicalsandwichpress

One can assume Netanyahu is already itching to press the big red button against Iran.

bongget

It’s high time that Europe takes care of it’s own problem and not be a side kick in Asia and Africa to the US policy

deadindian9

Trump's the special kind of dipshit that would look at the treaty of Versailles and say "they won, why weren't they meaner to Germany. How weak"

ejennings87

dacommie323

Tal_Onarafel

It can be argued that Israel's high level of violence in Gaza against the Palestinians makes this situation worse.  Add to this the increased Israeli expansion in the West Bank in recent months.

These actions increase Arab perception that Israeli and its big supporter, the U.S., are unduly harsh in dealing with the Palestinians across the board.  Israel also had a big coup with its Hezbollah cell phone bombing, and *Operation Days of Repentance,* air strikes against Iran in Oct. 2024.  Iran therefore is likely to feel it is even more justified in developing a nuclear bomb, viewing it both as resistance and self defense actions.  Others in the Arab world might agree.

Adeptobserver1

Reports indicate Israel may prepare to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, prompting concerns of broader regional conflicts and economic impacts, particularly affecting global oil prices.

Israel-Iran Conflict and Potential Military Strike

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want