Public opinion is deeply divided regarding Iran's claim of accessing Israeli nuclear documents. A significant portion of commenters express skepticism, questioning the authenticity of Iran's claims and suspecting this might be propaganda or posturing. Others show solidarity with Iran, criticizing Israel and expressing support for Iran's right to defend itself or develop nuclear capabilities. There's a mix of geopolitical analysis, historical grievances, and nationalistic sentiments, highlighting concerns over increased regional tensions and potential military escalation.

Iran

Israel

United States

Palestine

**Note from the mods**: During this time, many posts and comments are held for review before appearing on the site. This is intentional. Please allow your human mods some time to review before messaging us about your posts/comments not showing up.


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

AutoModerator

&gt;Even though the mentioned operation was carried out some time ago, "the abundance of documents is such that reviewing them and viewing images and videos has taken up a significant amount of time

lol ... That's gotta be the lamest thing I've heard for a while...

That's like your little brother suspiciously saying he filmed you doing something bad so you'll panic and give him your lunch money

Electronic_Main_2254

Or they're trying to spin and weaponize some docs they stole in 2024 (that according to Israel weren't classified) ahead of a possible reprimand by the IAEA 

Claim-Mindless

JewishSaddamHussein

hard to believe it when they had their boy ismail haniyeh sent to mars in their own country, and had mossad agents working in their anti mossad intelligence unit.

bober704

Just checking in, why is Iran still here?

PrintOk8045

AdministrativeArt466

That's some serious taunting from somebody who is  supposedly trying to avoid being bombed.

MostPutridSmell

I'm calling BS

any halfway competent intelligence agency, and by extension country, know the golden rule: never let them know what you have.

themightycatp00

Or Israel let them steal the docs so Iran knows for sure it we have nukes and will glass Iran if they want it

MadMuffinMan117

drpigo

Iran can claim anything they want. So far they are 200 years back in time.

system3601

Oh no, now they’ll figure out how to undo the [drought that weather-controlling Israelis caused](https://forward.com/fast-forward/404543/iran-general-claims-israel-is-stealing-its-clouds-to-cause-climate-change/).

DiscipleOfYeshua

they just stole back their own nuclear archives from 2018 :)

uncleroot

Iran being a major adversary of Israel helps it build soft power in the Muslim world. In addition anti Zionism seems to be a key ideology among Iran’s allies.  

ThreeCranes

Namely:

1\) Iran, like many of the nations in the region, need to deal with a lot of radical religious conservatives at home. As a result, you will never see an Arab leader come out in explicit support of Israel, including those countries which now have more\-or\-less peaceful relations with Israel. A willingness to form peaceful relations with Israel was one of a number of reasons that lead to Sadat's assassination in 1981. Even during the Iran\-Iraq war, when Israel and Iran were loosely allied, Iran was still publicly denouncing Israel.

2\) Those countries which Israel HAS formed alliances with are on the other side of the Sunni\-Shia divide, and carry the same problem as those mentioned in item 1.

8andahalfby11

&gt;Israel's support

Actually during the Iran-Iraq War, any support Israel provided to Iran (as part of the Iran Contra deal really) was intended only to further drag out the war and Israel offered support to Iraq too -- however Tariq Aziz absolutely refused to communicate the offer to Saddam. This was confirmed by the Teicher Affidavit

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq61.pdf




The idea that Iran is implacably opposed to Israel is not supported by the actual evidence and scholarship.

Iran offered to sign onto the Arab Peace Initiative of 2003 and was spurned.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html


It was actually the Likud in Israel that turned Iran into an enemy, because they considered the chance of improved US-Iran relations as a strategic threat to them in a post-Cold War world 
https://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117/




&gt;Israel's main focus is security, not regional dominance. 

This is an assertion without support. And highly debatable.


&gt; As recent events shown, Israel is perfectly capable of putting aside long standing animosities

Actualy as the Israeli "New Historians" have documented, since its inception, Israel has repeatedly disregarded Arab peace offers in favor of the status-quo of continual settlement expansion

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/16/the-real-reason-the-israel-palestine-peace-process-always-fails

&gt;In another pioneering book, *Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict*, published in 2001, Morris challenged Israel’s deeply embedded and idealized patriotic narrative on a broader scale. This big book challenged the mainstream Zionist view that Israel has always been a peace-loving victim of the Arabs. It made a persuasive case that Israel must share blame with the Arabs for the failure to make peace, **having rejected various opportunities for compromise over the years.**
https://www.mepc.org/birth-palestinian-refugee-problem-revisited

And...

&gt; if a country recognizes its right for existence.

Which is code for not recognising the right of the Palestinians to exist. After all, who is living in refugee camps and who in settlements?

Lets also remember it wasnt a Palestinain who murdered Rabin but an Israeli. 

Oh and Iran's expansion of influence is not attributable to the Arab Spring but to the mess created in Iraq; this talking point that it has something to do with the Arab Spring is widely asserted by people trying to distract from the mess they created by cheerleading the Iraq invasion. In fact the US supported the Arab spring and at the time the belief was that it would lead to toppling the regime in Iran too. But this scared the be-jesus out of the very same regimes you're citing having made peace with Israel, most of which are also oppressive dictatorships ruled by illegitimate nonegenarian kleptocrats and "Presidents for Life". 


This is what US Sec of State Rice said in Egypt:

&gt; For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East -- and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.
https://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/48328.htm
 

Later, the US backed Sisi in Egypt as be committed the biggest mass killing of peaceful demonstrators in a single day: The Rabaa Massacre

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/arab-spring-rabaa-massacre/536847/

thelasian

I want to start with the Arabs. The 'struggle' against Israel was first of all a powerful symbol for Arab countries and people. However over time it turned into a more dominant Islamic rally point. The Arab countries had a reason to maintain the Palestinian\-Israel conflict for domestic reasons. They had no intention to solve it. But simply use it to make their own authoritarian regimes more popular in an ongoing power struggle of Western 'invaders' in the Middle East symbolized by Israel. Recently \(but probably already for a longer time\) they realized their main foe would not be Israel, who had no intention to really hurt them, but Iran \(or actually a sectarian Shi'ite\-Sunni conflict\). Arab countries aligned more and more with the West and especially America. With the dangers of the Arab spring in mind, the realization of needing strong allies when facing both internal and external troubles, it made more sense in allying up with the West, improving those relations, absorbing more of the Western culture, growing closer to Israel, solving the conflict, and focus increased attention on Iran which is also for their own people an even more intense conflict.  


Now your original question. What prevents Iran from normalizing relations with Israel, simply because Iran over time has gone on a complete different direction than the Arab countries, the whole Islamic revolution and subsequent conflicts were build on an ongoing struggle against 'Western' and 'Colonial' powers interfering in Islamic countries of the Middle East. Where the Arab countries eventually grew closer to the West, even became allies with them, Iran did not and the regime maintained its historic discourse of fighting this colonial conflict. While Israel also was for Iran an almost perfect symbol of 'Western power' in the Middle East certainly in times when also the Iranian regime is questioned within its own borders. It remained to be a strong rallying point for many Muslims throughout the whole region. Both Sunni and Shiite giving Iran a lot of leverage over that conflict.  


For Iran giving up on tense relations with Israel would mean giving up on a powerful rally point for its own followers \[though many Iranians are not against Israel as Sunnis funny enough\], Shiite groups throughout the region, and basically other Muslims and anti\-Western groups. It would mean giving up on a tool that would justify its own corrupt and authoritarian regime on many levels making it also for the Iran regime more difficult to distract its own people from the difficulties they experience in their daily lives. With the Arabs they also have a very strong alternative which they do use but within their worldview, and their distance from Western powers, giving up on Israel would mean giving up on their worldview to large extent without a strong alternative since they cannot replace the Arab countries in those alliances, meaning the Sunnis would rule the Middle East, and putting more pressure on the Iranian regime at home which is already more fragile than people realize if we correctly look at whats happening in the country as such.

SlaroTheMan

1) Iran is an enemy of the US and sees Israel as a US proxy.

2) Iran uses hatred of Israel to win allies in the Arab world which it is trying to conquer.

[deleted]

So we have one person who is from r/Iran obfuscating and compromising about a 1/3 of the comments here and little discussion about the actual question because of that.  Kind of a shame this happens all the time here and really makes it hard to actually talk about the issue at hand. 

WirelessZombie

Iranian leaders are much more concerned about what their populace thinks than Saudis or Egyptians

If Israeli relations were dictated by popular vote in those countries, there would be open war once a decdade

And the obvious that running an ethno centric settler colonial state is clearly immoral and anyone supporting them immediately has the lower moral ground in most of the world's perspective. 

BelligerentBenny

I'd argue regional dominance IS Security for Israel.

Whenever a region is dangerous, throughout History,Empires have tried to conquer that region and bring it under control. 

(I'm NOT advocating for this,  but this would be theoretically speaking rational defence policy. So I thought it was worth mentioning as your comment contained an error)

Your source claimes

&gt; the Alawites are considered to be an off-shoot of the Shia sect of Islam

Actually Alawites can barely be considered Muslim

&gt;In fact, the claim that the Damascus-Teheran alliance is a product of a shared religious tradition connecting the Shia and Alawis has it backwards: political alliances were not made for religious reasons, religious alliances were made for political reasons.  Shia and Sunnis had both denounced Alawis prior to the 20th century https://www.juancole.com/2015/08/secular-alawites-crescent.html

The idea that Iran only has alliances with Shia and is out to promote Shiism and create a "Shia Crescent" is really simplistic and Saudi sectarian fearmongering

"Israel's main focus is security, not regional dominance" -- *Citation needed

You would have to ignore decades of history and the entire documentary record to actually take the Israeli government propaganda line at face value and believe this is true. This is as naive and ill-informed a statement as you can make.  It is equivalent to saying that King Leopold's true motive in colonizing the Congo was to altruistically bring the benefits of modernism rather than exploit the Congolese population for slave labor to harvest rubber and ivory.

Sonny_Crockett123

What’s interesting to see is what Israel will do with Russia.  Even though the trump administration is looking to tighten their bonds with bibi that doesn’t necessarily mean that he can’t also try and drive a wedge between Putin and Iran.

cvg596

There have also been several rumors about how Israel pulled back when they got their F35s locked on by an unknown system.

madali0

The one narrative that should be ignored, and is the facto state department approved line in reddit, is that Israel destroyed all of Iran's air defense and then did nothing and just left.

Like Israel would do that

Laughable. The western propaganda is now only believable by interns that work in Washington DC think tanks.

Additional points made by same poster

https://x.com/cirnosad/status/1851830453067747823?t=Zhr8J8C8g8mgxWlcgsMCHQ&amp;s=19

During the Israeli attack on Iran, none of the planned targets were destroyed. How do we know this?

Typically, the Israelis and their allies will take high resolution photographs of their targets before striking them. This actually involves usage of delta-v on the satellite in order to stabilise focus and so it isn’t free as it uses up the lifetime of the satellite jet engine. So they cannot be shooting photos left and right, they have to do so selectively.

Anyway, you can be sure all intended targets had high resolution images of the “before” state. All modern militaries will do this to confirm the effectiveness of their strikes, it’s far cheaper than using HUMINT.
And yet we have no such images in Iran’s case — so this tells me all targets were contingency ones. And it seemed that the strikes had little to no effect, if OSINT idiots are busy staring at shadows without any reference photos.

You see, OSINT folks are just intelligence laundering cut outs. They exist for intelligence agencies to leak out what they want you to see without making it clear that they want you to see it. Try and get access to Maxar and other satellites and you will see that image requests aren’t so easy to make, and especially in conflict zones. This is a closed information tool.

So there you have it, this is how to leak out evidence, by assessing what has NOT been seen.

Well Iran did use it's best air defense systems like Bavar 373 and 15 Khordad, and it surprised the israelis that how good they were! at least this was what AItelly said, and Iranian sources said that 3 Khordad was so good in this attack that 25% of the missiles that got intercepted was because of this air defense system,

there were some hits on Iran AD, like in Elam, Khuzestan and Tehran, but NO IRAN DID NOT LOST ALL OF IT'S S300 SYSTEMS THAT NYP SAID! for you to do that you need to hit 2 radar sites 2 radar fire control systems and 3 to 5 batteries, so sorry Zinoistbros Iran still has it's s300 at full readiness.

Btw Yohav gallant said that the attack was going to be 4/5 waves and it was supposed to take 12 hours, and we all know what happened.

But the biggest damage that was caused to iran was the martyring of 5 Iranian people (4 from Artesh and 1 civilian),  Iran did got hit in it's millenary bases either from drones or from missiles, But These great 5 men were the highest  damage those Zionist Bastard done.

# "The evil Act of the Zionist regime should not be exaggerated or belittled" 

\-Iran's Shahanshah.

mrandMaMaD7

This is an interesting rebuttal of the propaganda about Iran’s AD being destroyed.

https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/quick-and-dirty-the-two-iranian-air

SentientSeaweed

I too believe in fact that Iran would demolish Israel. There’s no doubt about it. They don’t have the army power, and their jets cannot make it through Iranian airspace. Even if they do (which would be a miracle)- Iran is way too big and their jets don’t have enough fuel. They won’t be able to refuel in air because they’ll get shot down. 

It’s also been confirmed that Israel’s defence system IRON Dome CANNOT stop Iranian missiles. They do not have the capability, and their missiles aren’t strong enough to reach Iran. 

If Hezbollah, Houthi’s and Iranians coordinate attacks- they’ll take Israel down very quickly; especially because most of Israel’s soldiers are very weak even if they are better equipped. 
The problem with this^? It would probably cause another Middle Eastern war. America would definitely get involved and basically use Saudi and Israel as proxies. If the Taliban gets involved from Afghanistan it would even get bigger. 

Me personally, I don’t see a way out of it; however I do see one chink in Irans armour that Israel is trying to exploit. 

The Muslim regime in Iran. Most Iranians want a revolution and take out whoever is in control which would most definitely take them out of the war with Israel.

TurnoverAwkward1859

Lack of materials.

The difficult part about building a nuclear bomb isn't the knowledge - as you say, it's relatively easy to get a detailed guide. The difficult part is getting access to enriched uranium, which is rare, expensive, doesn't naturally occur, and needs to be made with large, difficult and obvious facilities.

That's the stumbling block that non-nuclear powers, including Iran, keep running into. Getting enriched uranium is quite difficult if people don't want you to have it, and you can't make a nuke without it.

Urbenmyth

Although the technical side of the question is not an area of expertise, international relations I do understand. If I've followed events in relation to the US, Iran, and nuclear weapons correctly since the Obama presidency and the 'Iran nuclear deal' as it's sometimes referred to, Iran has the expertise and materials to build nuclear capable weaponry but doesn't because of the escalation in tensions it would cause. It is currently content to use the threat of being able to build one, and take advantage of the acknowledgement and currency that goes with the restraint it demonstrates by not. It isn't an accurate picture to paint that its ministry of defence lives a constantly frustrated life with failure after failure trying to create one. In reality it could if it wanted to, but for now at least part chooses not to, part doesn't because there would be a price to pay if it did in terms of the international community including it's allies; even Russia and China for now at least prefer it doesn't, they like the nuclear club the size it is, Iran would need them less, and they like Iran needing them, it's their influence in the region, a parallel with the US and Israel. Of course international relations are only ever fluid, and the region is rapidly changing and deteriorating. Today's status quo, may not extend into tomorrow.

zo0m07

Everyone in this thread keeps saying it's materials, but it's not. Iran has had enriched uranium, they decreased it under the JCPOA, since the JCPOA effectively doesn't exist anymore, they have announced multiple steps of increasing enrichment percentage and amounts in a stepwise fashion as a signaling device. 

Anyone who doesn't think they have enriched uranium should ask the IAEA [https://apnews.com/article/iaea-iran-nuclear-enrichment-stockpile-2190f0d7247a6160fb13f28304d4b6ad](https://apnews.com/article/iaea-iran-nuclear-enrichment-stockpile-2190f0d7247a6160fb13f28304d4b6ad)

It's because they don't want them yet. They have the materials, they have the knowledge. The US made one in the 1940s and North Korea made one almost 20 years ago. 

1) They're expensive to produce and maintain. REALLY expensive. It's not just the pits that need to be kept up, it's the triggering mechanisms, the massive command and control structure, the security apparatus, having a delivery mechanism, etc. 

2) If they're going to be militarily aggressive and make a nuclear weapon, they can't show up with just one nuke. If they make a single nuclear test device, Israel is going to do everything they can to destroy Iran's entire nuclear infrastructure. If they're going to set one off, they need to have everything in place to deter an attack - that means multiple weapons on proven delivery platforms, for starters. Delivery mechanism is a great example. They've been shooting ballistic missiles from mainly one place against Israel. If you're going to use that facility to launch ballistic missiles with nuclear weapons on them, that place is going to be dust and your nukes are worthless. They don't have airframes for them, they don't have SLBM capable subs.

3) Why do they need them? What does it get them? Other countries have them to defend against either a potential conventional military loss during an invasion or to counter other competing countries with nuclear weapons. No one in the region is poised to attack Iran in a ground war. Israel is the only one with nuclear weapons, which has not provided them any benefit. Spoiler alert - the US has been near war with Iran multiple times and has never invaded. Iran didn't need nuclear weapons to deter that, it's not a good place to invade (with or without nuclear weapons).

4) Iran has been successful at using this as a bargaining chip. Once you have nukes, that bargaining chip is gone. Threaten to enrich a little more and people may come to the table or at least take notice. Once you test a nuclear device, you can do whatever you want with enrichment facilities, nobody cares anymore.

TheDentateGyrus

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet For example

4me2knowit

The materials are very very hard to get/make/maintain.

Its a logistics thing, not a tech thing

Petwins

Most countries in the world have the know-how to make a nuke. The hard part is getting the materials for it. For Iran's case it's made harder by the constant sabotages by Israel

moxac777

Ok-Use9344

Enriched Uranium is hard to get.  Basically, here are the steps:

1. Dig Uranium out of the ground.  Not too tough.
2. Pour a bunch of chemicals over it to dissolve away anything that's not Uranium.  Also not too tough.
3. Run it through a giant superheated funnel where you mix it with a huge amount of Fluorine gas.  Fluorine is incredibly corrosive and will dissolve the Uranium into itself (making Uranium hexafluoride).  You've gotta keep this sealed, because if you expose it to other stuff (like air), the Fluorine will leave the Uranium and bond with that other stuff instead.
4. Run the Uranium hexafluoride through a bunch of centrifuges.  These spin really really fast, and require buttloads of electricity.  Also you need a lot of them to process any reasonable amount of stuff.  They separate the U-238 (slightly heavier Uranium that is far more stable and much less radioactive, and also makes up over 99% of naturally occurring Uranium) from the good stuff.  The good stuff is U-235.  The good stuff goes boom.  Spin the centrifuges fast enough, long enough, and the two will separate.
5. Collect enough U-235 and now you can make your bomb.

The problem comes up in steps 3 and beyond.  You can't really do that in your garage.  It takes a huge amount of industry to get all the equipment you need, and it also consumes a vast amount of electricity to run those centrifuges.  Any country that can make a nuke knows exactly what to look for.  And it's not like you can buy those centrifuges on Amazon.

We should probably also add Step 6 -- Do all the above without Israel shooting your scientists or bombing your centrifuges.

cavalier78

As a piggyback, why not just buy the finished product from an ally? 

Whats stopping Russia from giving Iran a couple hundred warheads? 

RejectorPharm

It's a decision.


Iran could almost certainly have built nuclear weapons if they really really wanted to. 


But, that would also almost certainly trigger the attack on their underground nuclear storage locations so why bother. 


The point of nuclear is a deference. 


Deterrence works even if the weapon is not quite finished, because if pushed hard enough, they can finish it. 


Israel has done attacks that set then back. There was a virus that destroyed their centrifuges. 


But in the end it's similar to the MAD concept. 


Nuclear weapons are a deterrence and (hopefully) will never be used. 

Canadianingermany

Becoming a nuclear state has a few more steps that are all political minefields.

Once Iran develops and tests a nuclear weapon, it will start a perilous ticking clock.

First, the test may not be very successful.  First attempts are often very wasteful of nuclear material and not efficient due to the shape/timing/precision of the detonation.  They don't want to look stupid, so they will use lots of fissile material to make sure the nuclear reaction occurs.

This bomb will likely be heavy and completely unusable in any delivery system Iran can produce.  They have missile systems, but in order to deliver a nuclear weapon, the missile has to carry weight and be stable in ways likely beyond their capability.  So, after the bomb, there is a time when they must learn how to fit the weapon to a missile delivery system.

Between the first test, which everyone on Earth will have detected with seismic equipment, and missile capability, Iran will be a pariah and everyone who fears a nuclear Iran will feel licensed to attack in self-defense.  Saudi Arabia has been close to a treaty with Israel several times, including this past year.  It is likely that Iran stirred up Hamas against Israel at this time just to blow up the Saudi/Israeli peace deal.  Saudi Arabia fear/hates Iran's regional ambitions.  And Saudi Arabia recognizes they are utterly incompetent at warfare, no matter how many billions they spend on fighter jets and fancy gear.  But if you want to see Saudi Arabia and Israel, formally or informally agree on something, wait five minutes after Iran's first successful nuclear test.  International condemnation and fears of a wider war by nearly every middle eastern nation will provide permission for action at that time.

As for Russia, if you think they are under sanctions now, they would be a pariah state if they gave Iran nukes.  China would break all relations with Russia and probably start aggressively pursuing old land disputes.  And to what end would Russia do this?  Russia went into Afghanistan because they wanted to eventually destabilize and take over Pakistan (which is doing a good job of failing as a state by itself) and get warm water ports and control east-west trade routes.  Probably not a forgotten ambition even if it's never gonna happen in Putin's lifetime.  Geography alone means nuclear-arming Iran would be far more likely to blow back on Russia than any of Russia's foes.  And that's assuming Russia's nukes even work.  Their last test blew up on the pad.  If they haven't kept their tanks in good working order, you know they haven't kept nukes tested.  And nukes have expiration dates.  Radioactive materials rust, tritium decays, explosive charges and electronic components age and fail.

Anyway, everyone things that it's *game over* once Iran successfully tests a nuclear weapon.  It would definitely trigger a very dangerous period.  But Iran would still have work to do to get a nuke on a missile.

InfiniteMonkeys157

Iran's strategy is based on 'breakout capacity,' which basically means they have the ability to build a nuclear weapon within a very short period of time if the need arises, but haven't actually tested one. The idea is that testing a nuclear weapon would provoke crippling international sanctions, and possibly a direct strike from Israel, but Iran can develop the components needed to assemble a nuclear weapon without provoking a crisis. The U.S.'s [current estimate](https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/19/politics/blinken-nuclear-weapon-breakout-time/index.html) is that Iran has achieved breakout capacity and could assemble a nuclear weapon in 1-2 weeks.

Brilliant_Towel2727

They had a working relationship with the US that meant they would build nuclear power plants with assistance and they would  return all the spent fuel rods to the US to ensure nothing would be available for nefarious purposes.


ANYWAY trump shat on that deal and they could theoretically get back to building nukes if they wanted to.

TouristPuzzled2169

My guess, it is a cost/benefit analysis on Iranian part. Not unlike that missile hit/miss on a US base in Iraq: how could have they missed such a huge target! As Trump admitted recently, they called him beforehand and warned to sit tight because they must retaliate and will be hitting around. They could have hit the base, but chose not to.

Worried-University78

A not at all stupid question - I'm sixty and have wondered this ever since it became a major issue lol

DogWallop

Who knows whether they do or don't it's the level of uranium enrichment to weapons grade.

Since the dropping of the Obama nuclear peace accords, which limited the level of enrichment to non weapons grade, Iran has been increasing the enrichment process.

Power stations reactors run on 5 % U-235 nuclear weapons on 90%. They have had the power reactor grade for some time.


A nuclear warhead requires 65 kg. It's in the form of a sphere around 18 cm wide, like a bowling ball.

Let's hope for all our sakes they haven't got this far or managed to buy it from Pakistan, Nth Korea or Russia 

They certainly have the missile technology to deliver the thing.

Israel &amp; the US are playing a dangerous game here &amp; Israel's pre emptive strike against Hezbolah will have shown the Iranians. It doesn't pay to hold back if you're going to get destroyed anyway

popularpragmatism

Lol "lack of materials" 

Current publicly available estimates place a functional Iranian capability in as little as 12 days to as much as a month, should they choose.

They have *not* chosen, so far, because they signed a deal with the US to halt their acquisition in exchange for sanctions relief. A deal they held to for years after the US reneged on their commitments.

Also it would MAJOR escalation in regards to their batshit insane rival Israel, who would likely strike them pre-emptively.

Now that they're on the cusp of all out war, it remains to be seen if they will finally acknowledge that a nuclear deterrent is the only true safety they can ever have. 

I would also like to point out that during the Iraqi invasion of Iran, the Ayatollah expressly forbade the use of chemical weapons against Iraqi soldiers. Even when the IRGC and Army commanders practically begged to be able to use them in retaliation for the chemical attacks by Iraq.

Khomeini hated chemical weapons, and he hated nukes, and forbade both.

He's dead, and Iran's cold war is going hot. Who knows what they will decide now.

Thank Christ almighty our geopolitical rivals aren't as deranged as we and our allies are. We'd all have died a long time ago.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/10/16/when-the-ayatollah-said-no-to-nukes/

thenecrosoviet

Politics, money and logistics aside they've been subject to multiple sabotages from Israel and the USA.

You have to have a buttfuckton of uranium to make nukes and the shit doesn't just grow on trees. Iran has no other friends besides Russia and even that friendship is tenuous. The whole fucking world hates Iran. Their entire regime needs to be dismantled by any means necessary so their country's people can go back to life before the Revolution.

LookinAtTheFjord

1) the maintenance of nuclear weapons is very expensive 

2) the threat of making a nuclear weapon is almost equally effective as a detterent to actually having a nuclear weapon without all of the diplomatic and fiscal costs that would be incurred

cbourd

Having one or two is more trouble than it's worth. 

You're never gonna destroy a superpower with a small amount of them but their counterattack will remove you from the map permanently.

Your only hope of beating them is guerilla tactics.

Fire_is_beauty

The difficulty in getting the resources needed to make the nuclear weapon can be illustrated by the response of the nation that received the first nuclear explosion. 



Just after the Hiroshima bomb, Japanese physicists visited the city to confirm that it had indeed been an atomic weapon - and in their report to the ministers, they estimated that it was unlikely that the US had many such bombs, drawing from their own experience in their Japanese atomic bomb programme - the chief of the Navy took this to mean that the war should be continued, "Admiral [Soemu Toyoda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soemu_Toyoda), the Chief of the Naval General Staff, estimated that no more than one or two additional bombs could be readied, so they decided to endure the remaining attacks, acknowledging 'there would be more destruction but the war would go on'........."

  
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic\_bombings\_of\_Hiroshima\_and\_Nagasaki#Events\_of\_7%E2%80%939\_August](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Events_of_7%E2%80%939_August)

WeeklyClassroom7

The technology is old. It's the access to restricted materials that makes it difficult

AwarenessNo4986

Am not sure, but the threat of going nuclear is a political leverage in itself

OkBasil7812

STUXNET threw a pretty big monkey wrench in their uranium enrichment capabilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

FightThaFight

IronAged

This is what the Iran deal was for…they gave up enrichment which is the key to making nukes.  When Trump tore the deal up Iran went back to enrichment and are likely quite close to having enough material

Odeeum

I think quite a lot of it has to do with geopolitics as well. Any new country getting nukes has a chance of causing a whole bunch of other countries to reconsider their stance on their own potential nuclear capabilities. Not to mention the amount of blowback they might get from the wider international community as well. I think as we are right now, the path of least resistance is to not rock the boat.

I_Dont_Like_it_Here-

Any modern state can set up a working nuclear program. 

The long term logistics and maintenance of it is where it gets tricky because it gets very pricey, very quickly. For example, Ukraine could have pursued a nuclear weapons program after the collapse of the USSR but prioritized other aspects of the economy. 

Another thing is international pressure. South Africa had a nuclear weapons program but the apartheid government gave it up as a friendly gesture to get bonus points on the world stage.

Then there is the 3rd reason: the security dilema.  Iran has been assessed as being capable of creating a weapons-ready bomb in a matter of weeks but they CHOOSE not to because they don’t want to provoke their neighbors to strike first or build bombs of their own. The Saudi’s said they’d build up if Iran starts building up. Israel would go on a massive air campaign to start bombing its facilities and infrastructure. Sometimes, it’s just better to keep the genie in the bottle. 

I think of that quote from the marvel movie that goes something like: strength invites challenge and challenge leads to catastrophe

Friendly_Banana01

The answers in this thread aren't technically wrong, but given how close Iran has been to having a nuclear ready warhead, I'd be shocked if they didn't already have one.

The thing is, you only know a country is nuclear when they say it or they conduct a test where the ions from the radiation gets detected in the air.

Iran has no reason to test, and given that their regional rival Israel has a policy of ambiguity, they'd be better off remaining quiet on if they have nuclear ready warheads or not.

frizzykid

Because NATO has been watching them for 30 years at least...they make sure they don't get what they need to build them.

Beginning_Camp715

They could very well have a bomb prototype at this point but are afraid to test it because it would be detected by outside nations who would immidiatly form a coalition against Iran

TheHessianHussar

We used to actively thwart their attempts at refining weapons grade U.

NotAtAllEverSure

There are many reasons but here are two:

a) By not acquiring nuclear weapons Iran can continue to use it as diplomatic leverage against Israel and the US. Once they announce having nuclear weapons they lose a massive trump card. This ties into the next point...

b) Japan, Germany, Canada, and a few others are also considered "nuclear latent". They have all the equipment and knowledge to rapidly assemble nukes if required. Since nobody likes nuclear proliferation, this approach guarantees security while safeguarding international credibility. This policy is just more widely discussed with Iran, since there's a real uncertainty about how Israel/US would react to a nuclear Iran.

ABadlyDrawnCoke

They have the parts and the knowledge of how to build them . They have decided it’s not worth having them around due sanctions they would be hit with . That is why Biden doesn’t want Israel to go after the nuclear sites. He thinks and he could be right that if Israel hits their nuke sites, Iran willl build one . The point is Iran has the power of being a nuclear state without having to build one . They could have one with 1-5 months . Meantime everyone kisses their ass in the attempt from going nuclear

B-52Aba

its more leverage for them to be able to threaten building nukes then the threaten using nukes

when you threaten to use nukes and eventually someone calls you out and says "yeah alright get on with it then" what do you got left? fucking nothing end of the road bucko.

if they raise the stakes all the way they die too, might as well keep it simmering indefinitely the boil and pop and game over,.

tradeisbad

That's a great question that some people wrongly assume everyone knows the answer to

I wonder also.  Pakistan is not a rich country and was able to build nuclear weapons back in the 1990’s.  Now nobody bothers them.  Pakistan is also full of quite a few extremists and somehow Pakistan has secured them for over 30 years

Universe93B

&gt;I remember seeing a diagram and explanation about how the atomic bomb works in my high school chemistry textbook.

The hard part isn't making a bomb, it's enriching the uranium. Uranium when you pull it out of the ground isn't pure enough to make a bomb. You need to refine to a rather extreme extent.

pavilionaire2022

I was listening to a podcast, and they apprently can build one in months, not years, IF they wanted to.

PrestigiousBox7354

Per Iran's own leadership, they aren't even trying to build nukes. They are, however, very interested in developing their nuclear energy infrastructure.

However, because we need them to be a big spooky enemy, we will always claim that they're X months away from developing nuclear weapons. Such claims go back to the 90's. If they wanted nukes, they'd have them.

Minimus--Maximus

Because they didn't want to. While Israel sabotage may be a factor, the real reason is the Iranian regime doesn't want to make them.

HumansNeedNotApply1

breadexpert69

Iranian here ( left the country 8 monthes ago ) , who said they don't have it ? If you know how manipulative they are ... we are suffering in that country man , the regime has maximum 10 milion supporters ( from 90 m people ) and they are killing the rest of my people , don't underestimate that regime

amirsadr

It could just be that they don’t actually want them. They just want the *capability* to make them. 

It could be that whenever you’ve been told they’re “so close” it’s justification for some new military spending or action.

WelcometotheZhongguo

Israelis blow their scientists up for one thing

periwinkletweet

They’re edging. They can have them in a weeks notice if they want to.

argparg

nizzernammer

TinCanSailor987

(1)The Iranian Revolution. (2)Money. (3)They'll be a pariah state again if they didn't commit the revolution due to wanting to use them on everyone else that they see as a rival in the Middle East.

With even less strategic depth, Israel would probably be more ruthless. Facing an existential threat from Hamas rockets, Israel would've probably already bombed it into oblivion by now. 

-----

Not directly answering the question, but it's an interesting fact that the French and Israeli nuclear programs developed simultaneously. Quoting from Wiki:

&gt; Francis Perrin, French High-Commissioner for Atomic Energy from 1951 to 1970, stated that from 1949 Israeli scientists were invited to the Saclay Nuclear Research Centre, this cooperation leading to a joint effort including sharing of knowledge between French and Israeli scientists especially those with knowledge from the Manhattan Project, the French believed that cooperation with Israel could give them access to international Jewish nuclear scientists.

&gt; According to Lieutenant Colonel Warner D. Farr in a report to the USAF Counterproliferation Center while France was previously a leader in nuclear research "Israel and France were at a similar level of expertise after the war, and Israeli scientists could make significant contributions to the French effort. Progress in nuclear science and technology in France and Israel remained closely linked throughout the early fifties. Farr reported that Israeli scientists probably helped construct the G-1 plutonium production reactor and UP-1 reprocessing plant at Marcoule."

So, without Israel, the French nuclear program would probably be delayed too.

OmOshIroIdEs

For ones the nukes are an unknown and there only relevance if they are real is mutually assured destruction against an Arab coalition 

As for no Iron Dome. Well. You’ve just made it so Hamas had murdered a lot more Israelis before their attack on the music festival. Since without it, those 10,000 rockets actually hit civilian targets

Fit-Capital1526

There would have been several more wars Mostly fought over the West Bank. Gaza would have been invaded ten years ago.
The result would be a lot more dead Palestinian civilians

jar1967

As one redditor used to say: [Iron Dome is not to protect Israelis, it's to protect Palestinians. It's to make defense viable option financially and not to force Israel to go on offense.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/s/x6SycJQMh0)

agenmossad

Starting from the 70s and working backyards.

Several possibilities.

Israel might have lost the Yom Kippur war. Or followed its 1948 playbook and used either biological or chemical weapons (google: Operation Cast Thy Bread). Egypt might have responded in kind.

It is also possible that 73 war would feature a smaller attack.

In real life

1st, Egypt had tried to make peace with Israel in 1971 and was met with a no and maximalist demands from back channels. 

2nd, Egypt came to the conclusion that real problem with making peace with Israel was Israeli sense of invincibility.

3rd, Egypt didn't fight the 1973 to win but rather make Israel bleed. Knowing about Israeli nukes, they passed up chances to launch invasions across the desert as a flat, lifeless plane is an ideal place to use a nuke.

If everything else happens like it did, Israel is more in danger of losing the war. 

&amp;#x200B;

Now in the 60s, US Israel relations are better because we trust Israel isn't making a nuke. However, when the 67 crisis comes, Israel might chose to talk it out. Going to war without a nuke is risking the entire state. So US mediated peace talks would have been preferable. Egypt wanted a court handle all their differences and Israel would have been up a creek. US at the time was still demanding Israel take back all refugees. As a court is going to demand the same thing, that's an easy price to pay than risk destruction.

The merkava would just be a 3 stack turret 15 meter long land battleship with giants subwoofers and speakers and a blind guitarist for every tank

LongjumpingBasil2586

It’s far less likely that Israel tolerates Palestine‘s existence as long as it has as, as soon as the rocket attacks repeatedly hit Israeli cities any Israeli government that didn’t either put Palestine under permanent military, occupation or deported the Palestinians would be immediately voted out in the next election.

This entire conflict at this point is only continued because Israel generally treats it like a relatively mild border inconvenience most of the time, rather than an actual war up until recently.  If you remove the iron dome, Israel no longer can just ignore attacks upon it now the government is under pressure to react and with the rather constant nature of these attacks, any government that did not take harsh action, will immediately lose, almost all popular support and would be forced out of office and replace with the government that would take necessary actions to prevent Palestinian organizations from ever being able to launch rockets in Israel again.

Rexbob44

The Arabs will never attack Israel again, it cost them too much blood and treasure and decimated their armed forces. If you are an Arab leader you don't want to lose to Israel. There'd have to be a major calamity in Israel related to a natural disaster that leads to an Arab invasion of Israel

Vast-Ad-4820

They will have to go full offensive every time rockets are shot from Gaza or lebanon. Basically, it's like how every country would react

ApostateProphett

It means a lot more Israelis would die, and a more vulnerable Israel would fight like the Saudi, Iraqi, or Syrian army, IE total disregard for civilians. Gaza would be obliterated, and the Arabs there would be expelled.

EngineOne1783

Iran has claimed to have obtained sensitive Israeli documents related to its nuclear program, escalating tensions between the two countries.

Iran Claims Access to Israeli Nuclear Documents

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want