Public sentiment surrounding the Israel-Iran conflict is predominantly negative, characterized by frustration over perceived double standards, skepticism towards military actions, and calls for peace and diplomatic solutions. Many commenters express sympathy for civilians affected by the conflict while criticizing both Western and Middle Eastern responses, showcasing fatigue with ongoing violence.

Israel

Iran

United States

Western Governments

/u/siorge (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1lbatee/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_israel_attacking_iran_makes/), in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

DeltaBot

I'm going to put aside the moral rightness of whether Israel is justified in attacking Iran. Most people likely believe that Israel is either justified or that they're morally bankrupt, so in either case the rightness or wrongness of the decision wouldn't impact the Israeli choice in the matter. Instead let's focus on whether or not it's a good strategic decision. 

First, let's look at the objectives of the strikes and whether they were achieved. 

* Decapitation for the Iranian military leadership

Astonishingly successful on a scale that isn't really getting as much attention as it should. The Iranian military is extremely centralized to keep most of the control concentrated in those loyal to the Supreme Leader. Israel just assassinated the commander in chief of the military AND his deputy, the chief of the revolutionary guard, and the head of Iranian air defense. I really can't emphasize enough the level of institutional knowledge the Iranians just lost and the chaos that replacing it is going to entail. Just to give a concept: imagine that the US national guard was a unified force across all the states with its own command structure entirely separate from the joint chiefs of staff. Now imagine a drone killed the joint chiefs and their replacement wasn't a general from the army or Marines, but the head of the national guard. That's basically what replacing Mohammad Bagheri with Abdolrahim Mousavi is like. The Iranian military is about to go through a fundamental reshuffling and power shift. 

* Dismantle the Iranian nuclear program

It's still too soon to tell, but I'm doubtful. Israel claimed to "significantly damage" the underground facilities at Natanz, but so far that's been unconfirmed by any other reporting and would have been quite the accomplishment considering it is buried in a mountainside. I think it's more likely that this was a mild setback in Iran's enrichment process but is likely to spark Iran to pursue actual weapons grade uranium rather than stockpiling 60% enriched material. 


That puts Israel in an EXTREMELY dangerous position for the next month or so. Iran is likely to devote all of its efforts to constructing a usable nuclear weapon before Israel can finish destroying its enrichment facilities, and will likely succeed. At that point, you have a difficult to predict and shifting military leadership in possession of a nuclear weapon with every incentive to use it before Israel can launch follow-up strikes to destroy it. It's a "use it or lose it" incentive structure that drastically increases the chance of a nuclear exchange. 

Let's say you're part of an Israeli military planning meeting discussing the airstrikes. An analyst tells you "if everything goes exactly to plan, there is a 5% chance that this time next month Tel Aviv will disappear in a mushroom cloud, but in exchange we will cripple the Iranian command structure for the next several years. I certainly wouldn't accept that risk, especially when as you said the Iranian ability to project power in the region has drastically diminished. There would need to be some external incentive to strike now, rather than last month or next year. 

I would argue that these strikes are NOT directed at regime change within Iran, but rather were intended to derail the American/Iranian nuclear talks or were associated with the attempt on Thursday to dissolve the parliament and call new elections. 

I'm not sure if that changes your view or not, but I hope it puts it in a different light.

brainpower4



You've outlined your arguments why Israel might be pissed at Iran, but you haven't satisfied that Israel's attacks are meaningful in any way that is a response to the threats you've outlined.

Eg: you argue that Iran, through proxies, is messing with Israel.  And presumably,  yes, Israel can poke back.   But Israel's clapback is entirely insufficient to address your argument that Iran is messing with proxy irregular forces.

 As you well know, Israel's purported official reasoning is Iran is "too close" to achieving nuclear capability, whatever that means.  If that's true, it doesn't affect Iran's proxy irregular capacity,  it affects (Maybe?)  Iran's nuclear capacity.  

Btw, the Houthis are definitely supported by Iran.  But it's a stretch to say that the Houthis are a conscious active lever of Iran directed specifically @ Israel.  Houthis primarily have beef with zyemen official govt, and KSA which props up Yemen.  The reason why Iran backs the Houthis is because Iran likes to help cause headaches for KSA.

I'm not confident that Iran backed up Assad in the way you say.   More like Assad being weak suited Iran, and Iran had official or unofficial channels for access for transit.

You've got some weird perspectives on ME dynamics.

CocoSavege

To clarify, your argument is that, now that Iran's strategy has failed and it isn't a threat anymore, that it's right for Israel to attack Iran? 


This does conflict with Israel arguing pre-emptive self-defense. 

AdvancedPangolin618

Lol, yes, they "decapitated" Hezbollah...who then forced them out of Lebanon.  Houthis are still causing shipping problems.  Hamas have more people than ever (as was inevitable with Israel's actions).  Assad falling is the only actual win for Israel and they didn't even do it.

No, it doesn't make sense to attack Iran.  Iran is a much larger country and Israel is losing support because of their genocide.  This could backfire on them big time.

Mrs_Crii

I don’t agree that Israel should have attacked Iran and I don’t think it’s the win people think it is.

Yes, Iran’s proxy network has taken some serious hits lately. But attacking Iran directly is a huge escalation. This isn’t just another skirmish with a militia — it’s targeting a large, sovereign nation with real military capabilities, regional influence, and plenty of ways to hit back (missiles, cyber, maritime disruption, etc).

The idea that Iran is “weak and alone” feels oversimplified. It’s definitely under pressure, but a direct attack could actually strengthen the regime by rallying nationalist sentiment. We’ve seen this before: foreign threats tend to help authoritarian governments tighten their grip, not collapse.

Also, strategically, what’s the endgame here? Iran isn’t going to roll over. If anything, this raises the risk of wider conflict in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, or the Gulf. And it could cost Israel politically too, even its allies might start pushing back if this spirals.

tldr: just because the opportunity exists doesn’t mean it’s the smart move. Containing Iran’s influence is one thing; attacking them is another. This feels like a gamble with way too many unknowns.

NoWayBruh_

Let us leave aside the question of Israel’s wars with other groups for now.

Israel’s conflict with Iran has no “theory of victory.” In short, what military action is Israel taking that will force Iran to back down and accept terms?

Bombing and missile strikes alone have never won a war. In fact, bombing and missile strikes tend to create a “rally around the flag” effect, as civilians support the local government protecting them from bombings.

Air campaigns have only aided in winning wars when coupled with the reality or at least threat of a ground invasion.

Israel (and her allies) has neither the immediate capability nor the political will to conduct a ground invasion of Iran.

As a result, their bombing campaign has no capacity to force regime change in Iran.

The current Iranian regime takes its anti-Israel stance as a foundational pillar of their worldview. Bombing them will not cause them to change this worldview.

In short, the bomb attacks may be successful at delaying the nuclear program or harming Iran’s military capability. But it will not *end the war.*

MiffedMouse

In other words, what you're saying is:

Powerful people spending a lot of money to kill other people makes perfect sense.

  
I agree with you that in the mad, corrupt and heartless world that we live in, it makes perfect sense to attack Iran from the point of view of military strategy: "It is better to destroy them before they get the same atom bombs that we have, or else they could do to us what we've been doing to them this whole time".

  
On the flip side, I would love to change your view on this topic.

Anybody killing anyone, for any reason, does not make perfect sense. In fact, it makes no sense at all.

If you value your life, why would you go on destroying the lives of other humans?

  
What, in fact, makes perfect sense is the opposite of attacking others: "don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you"

EduardoMaciel13

Maybe Iran is weak……. But how’s Israel doing? Like, really. They’ve been fighting a war in Gaza, they’ve fought a war with Hezbollah, they’re defending off Houthi missiles… their reserves are probably depleted. Thats why they’re so reliant on US funding to help bridge some gaps. So what happens if the US decides this is one step too far? 

NBC ran an article yesterday about how MAGA and the Republicans, traditionally very pro Israel, are starting to split. Some support this. Some want America to pull out and not get entangled in another. Trump didn’t even comment on the attack right away, and that’s….. VERY out of character for the Twitter Man, to say the least. 

I’m also worried about the Israeli public. Do they have the appetite for another war? I know some of my friends and family there are fucking exhausted of war. They’re also extremely pissed that they got woken up in the middle of the fucking night for Bibi to circlejerk himself over the initial attack.  The others (mostly the more religious and older people I know) are taking this as a miracle from God. So which side will be the prevailing sentiment? Time will tell. 

So TLDR sure, Iran may be really weak right now, but I’m not sure the timing was right for the Israeli public and for continued American support. Israel can and did absolutely start this new fight, but can they finish it?

jinxedit48

Israel is not an independent actor, they are the tip of the spear for U.S foreign policy in the region. Anything Israel does in the broader region (beyond gaza) is part of America's grand design for the future of the Middle East -- Iran has been the white whale of neocon nation builders for year as it is the last major counterweight to complete American control of the region.

So don't get it twisted -- this attack was not some rogue action of Israel taken out of self defense. This is power politics at play, the U.S fully supports this attack/operation and if they did not, it would not have happened. Just like it didn't happen for the last 15 years Bibi has been wanting to do it because the U.S leadership at those times simply told him no.

quantumpencil

The attacks are illegal. From US v. Nicaragua: 

&gt;  “the Court considers that in customary international law the provision of arms to the opposition in another State does not constitute an armed attack on that State.” 

Further, the court found that despite the US selecting the leaders, training, equipping, aiding in operations, target selection, etc., the US did not have effective control over the Contras so the actions of the Contras could not amount to an armed attack by the US on Nicaragua.

This applies to Iran and all of their proxies. Iran cannot be bombed because of the actions of the Houthis (not that Israel is using that justification in the first place). 

All these blatant provocations have done is increase the desire by Iran to have nuclear weapons to deter further attacks from Israel. Their efforts will likely increase, not decrease, because of these attacks.

FerdinandTheGiant

It makes perfect sense but not necessarily for what you listed, but if you're a corrupt criminal with an international arret warrant who can only prolong your freedom by starting new wars.

Teasturbed

To "strongly and aggressively attack" has major consequences. The more relentless attacks become, the closer it gets to becoming nuclear. Additionally, while not officially allies, Iran has ties with various countries including Russia and China. If Russia and China get involved, the whole world gets involved, if nuclear weapons are drawn, many millions die. 

Its obviously more complicated than this, but decisions in war have serious implications, and it doesn't just impact one country.

Alshee1

How is the Iranian regime even close to falling? Israel did conduct a very successful initial targeted strike to very high level Iranian military leaders, that by itself should be embarrassing for Iran yeah, but other than that what’s Israel even accomplishing with its current strategy&amp;operation?  Currently they are bombing eachother and that’s about it.

Israel is bombing nuclear infrastructure to delay Iran’s alleged nuke manufacturing, sure that’s good on paper. But does Israel and its allies have the political and population support/stomach to commit to an actual invasion of Iran? Without an actual ground army to occupy and manage Irans population centers, what’s stopping Iran to move its infrastructure to safer zones within their country? Israel’s constant bombing will only antagonize the Iranian population more against itself and make sure their desire to get nukes will increase. (Compared to Iran previously accepting international nuclear oversight if the sanctions are removed)

They also do not even have a chance of Iranian population to trigger a regime change. The blatant attack by Israel would only make nationalism to rise in Iran. So what is the endgame of this operation? Attrition eachother out with conventional bombs until one sides gives up? I would say Iran would definitively have a morale advantage on that situation, their homeland is attacked by their historic enemies, population will not give up and demand the leaders to give in to demands. Let’s say this goes on for a few more years, similar to the Ukrainian conflict, will the US &amp; Israel support of the public will continue to a pointless bombing and counter bombing campaign? So what happens when the support falters, does Israel call it a day and lran goes back to its weapon program?

Also Iran could literally trade some nukes (or the parts they need) from China or Russia in exchange for some huge favor if it can’t continue its proliferation due to constant bombing if it was desperate for one and this conflict goes long enough to cost US losses in other regions against China or Russia. They want a nuke to ensure their sovereignty, not to nuke Israel and get hit back by hundreds of nukes back from Israel, they are not a suicide bomber willing to destroy themselves as long as it destroys Israel too. For sure Russia can spare a few nukes it has for Iran, to make sure US is knees deep in costs in another conflict so that they get an easier go in Ukraine (or China for Taiwan).

superdupergasat

While Iran &amp; Israel are objectively adversaries, I don't see Israel's continued escalation as a wise move for the long term.

Israel's neighbors will forever be its adversaries so long as it subjugates Palestine &amp; it's clearly shown it intends to so indefinitely. Israel will never have peace as long as it remains an ethnostate. 

AFAIK both nations have a policy of escalating retaliation &amp; therefore tit-for-tat will just never stop unless both govts sign &amp; adhere to a ceasefire &amp; Israel gives Iran a reason to stop funding resistance/terror groups. 

If we assume both governments are rational (as in their primary goal is to maintain sovereignty &amp; legitimacy above all else) then neither will ever actually use a nuclear weapon, they'll just be a tool for deterrence. I don't find it realistic for Israel's policy to be preventing Iran's nuclearization at all costs to be realistic. Since Israel is a nuclear power, the Iranian govt will always seek to match that deterrence so long as it's able to retain power while doing so. Strikes against nuclear engineers &amp; facilities will only bring tit-for-tat &amp; continue the cycle until real, devastating war breaks out. 

Neither Israel nor Iran can actually "win". Israel's current policy in Gaza is simply unsustainable for peace with it's neighbors. 

pleasepleasenoroach

Why is that Israel a country that has repeatedly initiated wars on neighboring countries be allowed to have nuclear weapons? And Iran has never directly initiated a conflict, so why should they be barred from having nuclear weapons? Israel has even stated that it is fully willing to use its nuclear weapons as a first strike in their Samson doctrine, so why shouldn't Iran develop nuclear weapons as a deterrence? They would be stupid not to.

RichStatistician6601

Your viewpoint is too evil. 

According to your viewpoint, Russia's bombing of NATO is completely reasonable because NATO's entire peripheral strategy is built around a network of proxy countries and quasi military organizations. They spent billions of dollars cultivating anti Russian forces that support Russia's neighboring countries. The goal of this investment is to encircle Russia and empower NATO with the ability to threaten Russia from multiple perspectives while protecting NATO territory.

According to your point of view, it is completely reasonable for China to bomb the United States because the entire Western Pacific strategy of the United States is built around an organizational network that opposes China. They spent billions of dollars cultivating anti China forces that support Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines. The goal of this investment is to encircle China and empower the United States with the ability to threaten China from multiple perspectives while protecting the territories of its allies. It is absolutely reasonable to launch a tough and aggressive attack on the United States and Iran now

reflyer

The bigger question is why people defend Israel? When Israel can easily calculate and target all of Iran's targets, then this further proves they were intentionally slaughtering children and civilians in Palestine, affirming what every other neutral investigation said already.

human1023

When i hear Americans discuss geopolitics ... i always go "oh brother ... "

Yes. Iran groups lost groups it supports. 

Hezbollah remains remains in Lebanon. 

Even Hamas remains within Gaza

Houthis still bankrupted Eilat and ships avoid Suez. 

Israel will need to "mow the grass" soon enough - its thr grass will keep growing too. 

Syria fell to Turkish influence (much less to do with Israel). 

Israel is isolated diplomatically more than ever - look to Europe for your answers. 

When the shooting stop, there will be more shooting - its just pauses. 

Israels strategy of hard power hasnt worked for 80 years and wearing thin its supply of international support. 

This time though Israel will start walking away with a lot less of international support. Isreal is a prop for the US. 

Iran on the other hand has faced a 10 year conflict and multiple years of sanctions. Sheer survivalism.

Asleep_Mail5616

I think a key factor everyone is missing on the geopolitical level is external partners that have vested interest in outcomes. Russia already said they think the attack was unwarranted and an international violation. They could be inclined to barter or sell a complete nuclear weapon and system of older generation or potentially a super sonic warhead. 

Russia wants to show what they can do in Ukraine, Iran wants to destroy Israel, Russia needs resources across the spectrum of goods and capital, and weapon tests in real world environments are rare for this type of weapon. The current environment is volatile and desperate for Russia and Iran. 

Israel miscalculated weakness as the result of their actions. They think dismantling proxies and killing key officials will derail Iran, but I believe this is a grand assumption. If Iran already thought this path out, they could very well have a weapon ready to launch now and more ready to go. If they feel this is it, what is stopping them? War? War is here. Sanctions? Already going on. Regime change? That's encouragement at this point.

Buying a nuke and the enemy expecting you to not have one because you haven't made it yet, then striking them immediately with it is Art of War behavior. You don't need a general and leadership to volley the dome with missles, then set a hyper sonic nuke off above Tel Aviv. You just need a team, a system, a button, and Putin to drop a few off.

People think Iran is weak and won't commit, but we don't know their general feeling of retribution and desperation to act yet, and a nuke doesn't have to hit the ground to be deadly. A nuke can be set off far above the city and still ruin it. A few would end their capital in a moment. The fallout will be tremendous.

Underestimating Iran is a grave mistake, in my opinion, and Israel striking now while Russia is vulnerable and in need of friends was a very bad decision. This is how World Wars start. They didn't assassinate one man this time around, it was dozens.

DilbertPicklesIII

[deleted]

No it doesn't. Israel has a covert and illicit nuclear program running since the 60s. Do you expect neighbours to sit back smoking weed while a belligerent and vengeful Israel builds up its nuclear stockpile? 

If Israel covertly built nukes and continues to refuse international oversight, Iran can also do the same. 

Israel and the west as a whole have a history of fueling proxy wars, arming rebels and unlawfully invading states. Do I need to remind you how many civilians have been killed by the US army in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan? Nuking innocent Japanese civilians? Enabling warlords to abuse childrens for mining resources in Africa?

Iran's funding of terrorism isn't exclusive to itself. If you condemn Iran (which you should) you must equally condemn Israel and its enablers.

Gohab2001

Except….they didn’t account for the global shift in the perception of Iran and its government.

I’ve never seen anything like it before. The social media comments are littered with pro Iranian sentiment, even after years of (not so) subtle indoctrination against the IR.

We’re living in a different time, and the generations to come are largely anti-Israel now with no real way back.

Merino202

I think you are right and I hope that other redditors understand that it doesn't mean that one supports such an action l, just because he thinks it makes sense from Netanjahus perspective.

Israel has no real chance of destroying the nuclear program anymore, but they are weaker than ever in the past 10 years and Israel has the chance to disable a strategic threat for a long time. Iran can't use their nuclear weapons offensively, so destroying their conventional potential makes a lot of sense. Since Iran might use their nuclear weapons to deter future strikes, now, before the weapons get operational, would be the time to attack. Furthermore Iran can't use their proxies to react, nor can it defend itself, since Israel took out most of the air defense months ago. 

Two things to consider:

-international law would only allow Israels action if there is a believable immediate threat to them and if their action would be suited to disable that threat. Iran threatened to destroy Israel multiple times, but their program is ready to build weapons for almost 2 years and yet nothing really happened. Furthermore Iran decentralized and buried it's program very well so Israel achieved its goals of destroying the program are extremely thin. Instead they mainly targeted military targets, commanders and scientists.
This attack is suited to destroy Iran strategic potentials aimed at Israel, yes, but it's not a reaction to an immediate threat. So overall I think it's safe to say that Israels attack is not covered by international law.

-there is still a fatwa which forbids nuclear weapons active in Iran. Only an attack against Iran would justify assembling nuclear weapons. So before Israel attacked, Iran needed to retake that fatwa before presenting a nuclear bomb. You could argue that Israels attack enables Iran's regime to justify the bomb domestically. 

Israel might have destroyed a lot of Iran's potentials aimed toward Israel, but by doing so they further distanced them from international law (not like there is a lot left since what they are doing in Gaza) and they didn't solve the nuclear problem, they might even have made it worse.

ncoremeister

I'll not try and change your view diametrically as to a large degree this is my deductive analysis as well, however I'll seek to tweak your view as there is a major factor you don't mention and really should be taken into account.  Nuclear weapons.  

Israel's actions in eliminating Iranian proxies was absolutely part of a plan to give them the option to launch the attack we've seen. It was the impasse in negotiations where the foregone conclusion would be that the proverbial clock would run out that was the catalyst for this strike.  Had a deal been reached that eliminated Iran's pursuit of nuclear arms, I don't think you'd have seen this attack take place.  

The U.S. has distanced it's self from the action, we've stated we didn't sanction it. I don't even think it's reasonably contestable though that we support it, we are just trying to keep it from setting off a world war.

thecoat9

Without reading the shit u wrote because ik its gonna be justification over another to justify Israel's actions 

Well if u dont see that israel is a colonization state that was built on stealing murdering wiping all sorts of human beings idk how can be this dumb

Israel is the new nazi but it'snt going to last long

HuckleberrySilent911

It makes perfect sense if this was an isolated Iran Israel conflict but in reality this has shown the world that Israel is a warmongering state, Iran launched attacks on Israel and bombed Tel Aviv and not a single country came to Israel’s aid. That is unthinkable just two years ago. Israel used up a lot of good will to do what exactly? Get their biggest city bombed?

imahotrod

===&gt; CMV: Israel attacking Iran makes perfect sense.


.


No, it was tiny USA that attacked BRICS+ member Iran using Israel as a proxy.


And, the purpose of the attack was to halt the dedollarization agenda of the mighty Global Southerners, but declining USA won't be able to stop that.


What tiny USA will achieve with this attack is to accelerate the dedollarization process in the Global South:






Quote:




The dumping of the USD is leading to gigantic shifts in the distribution of wealth around the world:












https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/image-3.png












.








Rank of continents on GDP (PPP) basis, should Western currencies be dumped




















1. Asia
















2. Africa
















3. South America
















4. Europe
















5. North America
















6. Australia
















https://atlasdigitalmaps.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/g/a/gallortho50mmain.jpg


.




Quote:


Can we expect a preemptive strike against the fascist West by the mighty Global South ?


.




Lets hope, that doesn't go so far and the West doesn't become fascist. 




These days, the Global South appears to be in an advantageous position vs. the West:




The Global South could now shut down Western economies just by denying access to resources and markets. 




As we know, the West can not have manufacturing and services (the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy) without the supply of resources from the Global South.




The reality today is, the West faces a number of challenges, among the biggest is managing a transition from a financialized economy to a more balanced economy with a strong manufacturing sector.




The sad story is, Westerners are no longer independent actors, for example, if they want to achieve this transition, the goodwill of the Global South is a prerequisite. But why would the Global South be willing to help the West, let alone a fascist West ?




If the West can't manage this transition the economic, social and political consequences will be severe. As, with the progress of the agendas of the BRICS+ group, the West is threatened with loss of huge income from its gigantic financial sector, linked to reserve statuses of Western currencies and Western control of the global financial system.




Really, the West is finding itself in a very difficult situation. 




As the West declines, the self-confidence in the Global South is growing and growing. In the meantime, the Global South countries have become so powerful, that they can decide, if Western efforts to rebuild their manufacturing sector will succeed or not, just by supplying or not supplying resources and opening or not opening their gigantic markets.

FitEcho9

I highly doubt that the actual reason for attacking Iran at this time and place has to do with Iran's nuclear enrichment activities.

Based on the actions of Israel and the deception contributed by the United States, consider the targets other than the enrichment infrastructure (leadership assassinations, petroleum processing infrastructure, targets within the capital Tehran) this has much more to do with desire for regime change, and Washington appears to be going along with it, regardless of the words the politicos are reciting.

More specifically, it's about Palestine and Palestinians. Iran is the only nation that has consistently spoken out against what they see as the colonial nature of the Zionist state. Just as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA) poses a conceptual threat to the future of Israel as a Jewish state (UNRWA has persisted as the entity that would further the right of return for millions of refugees not permitted to return after their displacement in 1947 &amp; 1948, then again in 1967) - Israel has convinced Western governments to banish the organization with the "terrorist" label with the rationale that a few members of that organization came across the fence on Oct. 7 2023 (though details seem to be sketchy at best). 

Iran has been consistent in its call for Israel to back down on its colonial aspirations, "Greater Israel", what have you. While other governments in the region are much more tame in their criticism of Israel (while their citizenry are likely outraged in a more serious way), one might argue that Iran's public positions are more in line with their citizens. As such, it may be true that Iran's positions on foreign affairs may be more democratic or representative than their Arab neighbors' positions are. 

Getting back to the unprovoked/preemptive nature of Israel's attack, I believe it's safe to assume that the attack has much more to do with Palestine, specifically Gaza, than most would think. Iran stands out because it armed Hezbollah and the Houthis, whom each launched attacks against Israel at times when civilians in the Strip were being strafed by air strikes and robot killer drones, and paused when the Gaza population was not being attacked.

Is it therefore more likely that this war initiated by Israel has more to do with punishing dissent against its aggression than it does with eliminating the potential threat of an adversary attempting to achieve parity in terms of nuclear capability?

arasmssn

Isreal is and always will be a forward operating base for western oil interests. The entire point of it's existence since signing the Haavara Agreement with the Nazis has been the eradication of Muslims in the area. 

  
Therefore every attack on Israel has been in self defence by the Muslim people.

NW_of_Nowhere

I understand why they are doing it, but to play the devil's advocate here, relying on being able to bomb iran before they get the nukes is a risky strategy. They only have to fail once and they are literally cooked. At some point they have to deescalate this and build some kind of peace. Either that or one of these nations will end.

Ansambel

It makes semse for isreael maybe but everyone else would be better off if a deal was reached, the iranian economy was open, and iranian oil was back on the market driving prices down.

APC2_19

The region including gulf countries and turkey are all condemning the attack on Iran. Everyone here is hoping israel gets wiped out by Iran. Just like you would a cancer cell in your body.

lostandfound24

They fund terrorists so there is no ifs ands or buts about it. Nothing short of absolute annihilation is sufficient. Monsters need slaying. Not cages. Not diplomacy. Diplomacy should have gone out the window when they brought terrorists into it. 

Current-Pie4943

I'm unsure whether Iran is really incapable of decapitation strikes. It has carried out attacks outside of Israel, but these attacks targeted diplomats, not senior Israeli officials. So, if Iran is able to execute these lesser decapitation strikes, why hasn't it gone after more senior officials? Its actions reflect a concern with avoiding escalation. It targeted diplomats because this would be seen as less escalatory. Given the general geopolitical situation, if Iran took out a senior general, it would be seen as a massive escalation, whereas Israel can directly hit Iran's embassy without provoking war (case in point: Hezbollah hitting Bibi's house). But these concerns go away when there already is war. To be clear, I'm not saying definitively that Iran has the capability to carry out decapitation strikes, only that I'm not sure what it's actually capable of. And mainstream media is constantly downplaying Iran's capabilities.

People quickly forget the surprise they felt when Iran hit what is arguably the world's best protected air force base. People seem to believe their own lies. They think Hezbollah is basically Iran. Hezbollah and the Houthis are not Iran, and their failures are not Iran's failures. Iran may have supported them, but they have their own goals, and their failures were their own. 

Many things Israel has done have been "playing dirty". You might respond with "everything's fair in love and war" but the crux of the issue is that it wasn't war. At least from Iran's perspective, it wasn't war. Once Iran decides it is war, they may play dirty too.

Iran was going to get nuclear weapons next year for decades, according to Bibi. That is simply nonsense. And Israel seems to have neutralized the other threats. There's no reason to poke a bear. Maybe the top Israeli brass knows something that I don't, but given the surprise when Iran attacked before, I'm inclined to think there are some things they also don't know. This is probably a mix of propaganda and underestimation of Iran.

Edit: It turns out many of the nuclear facilities struck may have been decoys - there were no secondary explosions. Moreover, IAEA reported no leaks. So maybe the intelligence Israel and the US had is not that great? Iran should have hid its top officials better, but it was operating under the assumption that this isn't war. Dumb of them to assume that Israel would NOT act like absolute brutes with no regard for human lives (I guess only Israeli lives matter?). By the way, to kill one official, Israel took out an entire apartment building, and 20 children were among the dead.

RollObvious

How exactly do you plan to stop Iran from developing nukes underground? Doing routine airstrikes every single day is not an option due to massive cost of maintaining air superiority for the whole time . At the same time this strikes have sent a clear message that Iran needs to get the bomb no matter the cost if it wants to survive the next 100 years

Fahim5524

Israel is in serious trouble for one reason, they they are losing the support of the American people. Independent and Democratic voters are disgusted by the wholesale slaughter and view Netanyahu as their enemy as he did everything he could to help Trump get elected. And Republicans more and more are sick of the bottomless money pit that is Israel and in addition feel humiliated that the US has turned out to be Israel's lap dog, easily dragged into fights they want no part of but are forced to finance at great expense. For now, both parties are heavily supported financially by pro-Israel donors, and so in the immediate future these parties will continue to try and foist pro-Israel candidates, but a huge % of people have had it and this is starting to lead to rewarding ant-Israel candidates electorially. Overriding free speech and the 1st Amendment in the name of Israel will make things much much worse.

DetectiveBlackCat

Israel attacking Iran only makes sense from the narrow frame of Israeli Iranian relations. 

From a wider frame of international relations, it reduces stability in the regions and greatly reduces a chance of a peaceful resolution of the now decades long foreign relations conflict between the west and Iran. 

Israel has bombed Iran several times like this in the past. This provides real set backs to the nuclear program, but also sets back the process of the wider western world normalizing relations with Iran and integrating it into the global economic system. 

Small scale bombing do not, and are not intended to topple Iran as a regional power. Rather, either a fulls scale invasion is required, which might be cataclysmic for all parties, or more likely a process like what Franco’s Spain underwent would be required.

So while in the short term Israel’s methods are justified they are harming their prospects for long term peace, and for their allies to come to a lasting settlement with Iran. Think of this like a lawsuit, do you want to keep filing motions or settle eventually? 

The current intervention only makes sense short term, but does nothing to ease the long term issue.

baordog

Anyone who has followed global politics for a couple decades has heard all of this before. There is probably a callous on my brain from the number of times I've heard Netanyahu warn us that Iran is just months away from a viable nuke. He was saying the exact same thing 30 years ago!

Israel is trying to rope in it's western allies, mostly the US, to a regional war. The hope seems to be that this will result in a Greater Israel which occupies much more territory, and the destruction of Iran. 

I'd not argue that Iran is alone. Both China and Russia have shown a willingness to involve themselves in the region.  The whole region has plentiful fossil fuels even if some nations have less than others. Just having a proxy in the region is attractive for any large economy. 

Israel on the other hand doesn't appear to have clear realistic goals. The Greater Israel thing is not realistic. The idea that they are going to bomb most of their neighbors and perform ethnic cleansing and then go back to business as usual? No this wave of violence Israel has initiated will bear fruit in the future. 

Diplomacy makes perfect sense.

Calaveras-Metal

This could all be true. Personally I think its to take attention away from Gaza since the same day the attacks started they have cut all internet too Gaza  
[https://www.google.com/search?q=gaza+black+out&amp;sca\_esv=145e9b9e77ad6700&amp;sxsrf=AE3TifNhXB5RSX-zGq9wgvIwiElWTqkLqA:1749976460422&amp;ei=jIVOaMnDGZmli-gP56edGQ&amp;start=0&amp;sa=N&amp;sstk=Ac65TH7rjPdAFo9pB0pMIo03tgDftmXMQVBqzSK2EQwr6KvXLhV6kaDuGIrSd8hgV3keoHjZs11VmHQsjOsHepA3uK3u0KQw1QBlFzGmUQHwiKiQILwWW8wf9qOlS5sNrJFn&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjJuaeqgvONAxWZ0gIHHedTJwM4ChDy0wN6BAgnEAQ&amp;biw=3440&amp;bih=1311&amp;dpr=1](https://www.google.com/search?q=gaza+black+out&amp;sca_esv=145e9b9e77ad6700&amp;sxsrf=AE3TifNhXB5RSX-zGq9wgvIwiElWTqkLqA:1749976460422&amp;ei=jIVOaMnDGZmli-gP56edGQ&amp;start=0&amp;sa=N&amp;sstk=Ac65TH7rjPdAFo9pB0pMIo03tgDftmXMQVBqzSK2EQwr6KvXLhV6kaDuGIrSd8hgV3keoHjZs11VmHQsjOsHepA3uK3u0KQw1QBlFzGmUQHwiKiQILwWW8wf9qOlS5sNrJFn&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjJuaeqgvONAxWZ0gIHHedTJwM4ChDy0wN6BAgnEAQ&amp;biw=3440&amp;bih=1311&amp;dpr=1)

swinkdam

It's completely fine as long as it doesn't turn into a giant war. It seems like a lot of this was avoidable. The US had a deal with Iran then Trump ended it and then killer Soleimani which prompted the Iranian hardliners to gain power in the military which increased proxy funding and made Iran more aggressive. Iran likely had a hand in 10/7 because they didn't want Israel normalizing relations with the Saudis. 

Then Israel horribly weakened the Iranian proxies and struck Iran. Syria and Russia are essentially off the table as far as assisting Iran because Russia is occupied with Ukraine and Syria had its Iranian backed government disposed of. So it's just a very weakened Iran and a much better armed Israel left. 

However Israel is getting bogged down in Gaza in an increasingly internationally unpopular war and Iran is almost certainly trying to figure out whatever they can do to attack Israel as viciously as possible. At some point Israel may get over extended and need help.

thebigmanhastherock

Is impossible to change your mind why? Cuz

1.) Your said mission impossible movies sucks in one of your posts

2.) You are From France.

x-ahmed

Basically middle east to the European is just brown Muslim people

hoiz4

During the Roman Empire, a lot of those places (Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Carthage, North Africa, Syria) would have been considered Europe or the civilized world while places like Germany and Scandinavia were unknown chartered territories full of deranged Barbarians. I am not sure about Afghanistan, I think it was under the Persians. I think it was just more Mediterranean, which is more accurate. I would consider Pakistan its own thing. Lol

Hefty-Health-5402

Putting pakistan in the middle easy is weird af

Alternsss

I always considered Afghanistan in the Middle East (though could easily be considered Central Asia too), but I'd never consider Pakistan Middle East. Geographically, culturally, linguistically and historically it is South Asia. Converting to Islam does not suddenly make you Middle Eastern.

edotman

This is basically the Middle East according to r/AskMiddleEast

Find a daddy in Glorious KAZAKHSTAN 🇰🇿🇰🇿🇰🇿🇰🇿🇰🇿🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅

🦅🇰🇿 KAZAKHSTAN GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD 🇰🇿🦅 🤡 ALL OTHER COUNTRIES ARE RUN BY LITTLE GIRLS 🤡 NO GYPSIES ALLOWED 🙅‍♂️🙅‍♂️🙅‍♂️🚫🧍🏽🚫🧍🏽🚫🧍🏽👎 💪 KAZAKHSTAN NUMBER 1 EXPORTER OF POTASSIUM 💪 🤣 ALL OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE INFERIOR POTASSIUM 🤣 🇰🇿KAZAKHSTAN🇰🇿

🥵🇰🇿Kazakhstan prostitutes cleanest in the region🥵🇰🇿 🇹🇲Except of course for Turkmenistan's🇹🇲

✨Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan, you very nice place✨

✡️From plains of Tarashek to northern fence of Jewtown✡️

Kyrgyzstan??🤔🇰🇬🤔🇰🇬🤔🇰🇬 More like south Zhambyl 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🇰🇿🇰🇿🇰🇿

XVII century Kazakhstan W years 💪💪💪🔥🔥✊✊✊.Oirates 🖕Mongols 🖕Dzungarians🖕They 😤😤All suck 😂😂😂 Kazakhstan 14 cm dick🤡 🤣🤣🤣🔥🔥💯💯💯💯

🗿🗿Great Gengis Kan 🗿🗿👺🥱 was from beautiful 👐❤️ Алматы ❤️not 🚫 from small dick 🥒 Mongolia 🙅‍♂️🚫👎👎👎🤦

🇰🇿🇰🇿🇰🇿Kazakhstan 🇰🇿🇰🇿🇰🇿 heart of Europe 🇪🇺🇰🇿🇪🇺🇰🇿🇪🇺🇰🇿🇪🇺🇰🇿🇪🇺

Spersgorodok 💯💯💯las arian 🙋🏻bastion 🔥🔥🔥🔥🖕🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕👎

2012 Great Khazakh Khanate😁😁😁restored 💪💪💪🔥💪🔥💪🔥💪🔥

Dureniz

The first sentence under 'abstract' sounds so insulting. 

Sounds like its saying, "We have to fix and modernize them ignorant foreigners!"

Rich1926

Funny how the “Middle East” extends further west than Europe.

No-Piano-3073

Of course it was invented by the west because east is relative to where they’re at

Able-Character-4723

Astagfirullah. Neither of us are middle eastern 🙏🙏 Who cares about what whites say

I've always considered the ME to go from Libya to Pakistan, and include Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Istanbul

moguy164

Bro at this point just say the Muslim world. When Somalia and Afghanistan are on the same map that’s what it can only classified under

Wow we will become a continent with the increasing members 😹💗

More_Cauliflower_913

The heads at the department of defense throw darts at this map when they're deciding where next to try out new drones

Any phrase in English is obviously Eurocentric. Articles written in English examining the origin of words to show they are not politically-correct also stems from a (leftist) Eurocentric view of language. These proposed solutions aren’t any less “problematic” than the original issues.

yghaal

In Arabic we call the the West, wait for it....the West.

People refer to other places according to where they are geographically, nothing weird about it.

Positer

i_am_kolossus_

Yes, I too am sick of hearing about it but…what happens there has ramifications for us in US. It’s not a war. It’s a slow genocide supported by U.S. and Europe and enabled by a corrupt U.S. congress bought by Israeli campaign dollars that U.S. Tax payers gave them!! Our support of it has destroyed our global standing and earned us an amount of disdain and ill will that the average American cannot grasp. Israel has run a branding campaign for 60 years now to label anyone that disagrees with it…anti-Semitic and all Muslims as terrorists. There was no ‘Islamic terrorism’ until Israel was created. We have always had free speech on campuses…until students said anything against Israeli atrocities and then it was ‘hate speech’. The ultimate irony is that the Israeli leaders doing this in the “Middle East” are all Polish born and not even from the Middle East. Argue with any American Jew over this and they pull out the ‘my god promised me this land 3,000 years ago’ argument. This is not just another war, but one that will have negative ramifications for Americans for decades to come!!

"I don't like hearing about mass murder,"

he said, while people were being mass murdered

Breakingthewhaaat

Yes Im sure all the mothers whose babies are being bombed to smitherines are also sick of hearing about it.

I get what you mean. But at the same time, as a mother and a human, i am grateful everyday I look at my life to know I have that luxury to be "sick of hearing about it" and not living that horror.

thepigman6

It's not just squabbling and bitching, real people are dying every single day. You are sick of hearing it, but the people that are living it are sick of the brutality, torture, and genocide. No matter what side you're on, Idc, but have some compassion.

Just wait for another bloody conflict to arise - or stick to the countless other slaughters, around this world..

Chris714n_8

Israel is a terrorist nation and the new nazis.  Pick a side or gtfo.

TelephoneChemical230

Connect-Mushroom3402

Go for a walk instead of watching the news?

&gt; Anyone else just sick and tired of all the Israel vs Palestine shit that's been going on for decades now?

Nope, never watch tv.

megablast

Funny.  I'm sick of the land grab.  Different strokes....

ObservationMonger

It's not rocket science
Q  how do you kill a snake ?

SurealOrNotSureal

Ignore more media! Protest,picket propaganda, how are the people suppose to rule?

DeClawPoster

I'm just sick of the fake virtue signaling and activism. I live in the southern united states. And I'm confused what these jackasses think spray painting "Free Palenstine" on property is going to do

yaboytim

Nah i agree with you I open comments on insta nd it’s just “free Palestine” like yeah sure buddy your comments are going to stop the war

Sensitive_Young4630

I understand your perspective; however, the issue's relevance extends beyond your immediate involvement.  Dismissing it as unimportant, repetitive, or annoying reflects a self-centered viewpoint.

CallTheAuthorties

Cool so lots of sarcastic posts in response.  That's great. 

What should we be prepping?  I read to rotate out gas reserves early.  Anything else?

This whole timeline is just so goddamn stupid.

Ryan_e3p

I have family in Iran, and I hope they are okay. This situation is so incredibly stupid.

CyrusLovesDogs

I believe that attention should be paid to gasoline (it tends to increase with conflicts) and some rotation of supplies.

aubcler

What are the list of things a family of two should do in Tehran?

Angramainiiu

Fun times. those peace talks planned for Sunday are going to be awkward 

Nufonewhodis4

So Iran has stated they will attack US interests if they are attacked by anyone. In the past these have been ineffective strikes that we have brushed off without major escalation but no US personnel were killed which makes that choice much easier. It's entirely possible they may perform other acts of symbolic resistance to avoid drawing the US into another conflict. If there was a more serious attack the US would likely respond very forcefully would escalate into a really messy protected conflict.

Trump is also a bit of a wild card here. On one hand I don't think he wants war for various reasons. However since his negotiation talks seem to have broken down he may see this as an opportunity to strike Iran, damage their nuclear program and infrastructure to weaken them. This may be the an opportunity to tempting to pass up to degrade one of America's enemies. 

The result of this will of course be underestimated and turn out to be really messy. I suspect we may see attacks by extremists. We will likely experience cyber attacks which may impact a host of service from energy to financial. Oil and gas prices may spike as they seek to disrupt the oil supply. They may well also try to draw us into proxy wars in other places just to aggravate and distract us.  

The most important think I can think of is to make sure you have cash, a generator, spare gas, physical or digital copies of anything you might need from the internet in case of disruptions. It might also be wise to avoid large public events that might present an enticing target for extremists. 

All that said, ultimately I suspect this will be a spat that will not escalate out of control. Iran will retaliate but I think it will be limited in scope and not primarily directed at the US. There will be fallout in oil markets intentionally or just out of uncertainty. I don't think the Iranian government is viewed very positively amongst it's people right now. Many are struggling as result of the geopolitical tensions/sanctions as well as their own heavy handed and oppressive policies. I really think they will work hard to try and avoid ratcheting up the stress levels on their people any further which would make them even more unpopular and possible destabilize the country. Of course there is also the concern that these attacks will help garner support for the government depending on how this plays out which is incredibly frustrating as that is literally the opposite of what we have been working towards.

Enigma_xplorer

https://preview.redd.it/xn27h93fzl6f1.jpeg?width=1064&amp;format=pjpg&amp;auto=webp&amp;s=cf987959098522c9ba0316d91554f674087d6987

cobra93807

Very, very big strike. My hearts go out to the innocent souls hit in both sides.

RandoUserlolidk

For folk in the US and generally outside the middle east, not much changes outside of oil prices. The US seems sincere in the claims that they didn't participate and didn't want this to happen; Iran seems to get that and doesn't actually want trouble with the US. That doesn't mean that a lone wolf isn't going to get triggered into sailing over the edge and doing some random terrorist attack; but these days that's always a threat everywhere, and the preps are standard - food, water and cash at home; avoid crowds, have a mask, keep the cell phone charged up and the car full of gas.

This is a good time to reconsider air travel in the US, though. Between a rash of problems with air traffic control, airplanes themselves and increased enforcement activity, and now escalating tensions, I'm just not doing travel to the US until things straighten out.

OnTheEdgeOfFreedom

I live in Cyprus and I saw the missiles as I was driving down the highway. I honestly thought it was an asteroid breaking up and it was the end of the world. I can only describe it as rain fire. 

I called my family and friends and told them we need to get started on a bunker. They think I’m crazy.

nomadichedgehog

It’s crazy if anyone has read the book “Win Machine” it’s very similar to

hnybadgdntcare

I think oil will still go lower the next few months despite the above.

But the real pain comes to mid 2030s when crude oil can go to 350 per barrel.

ChilupaBam

swayzedaze

Sleeper cell activation by sympathizers to Iran? These condensed “NoKing”-type protests in the coming weeks could be targets for terrorists within the U.S. Keep your head on a swivel around large groups/protests.

EatMoarTendies

I am curious how one should invest if one believes the conflict has a high chance of escalating towards Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz and maybe bombing Saudi Arabia and maybe a wider middle east conflict than just Iran and Israel. I guess it qualifies as a certain form of prepping.

DaoScience

The immediate risk to the rest of the world is oil prices will probably go sky high if Ir@n’s retaliations include oil fields.

Also, Ir@n has shown that they have substantial military capability. A full scale conflict will likely *require* the US to back Isr@el.

Bob4Not

Countries around the world are reacting to the Israel-Iran conflict with diplomatic efforts aimed at preventing escalation and protecting civilians.

International Responses to Middle East Conflicts

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want