Public sentiment is overwhelmingly negative towards potential military intervening actions by the US and Israel against Iran. The majority of commenters express strong skepticism about government motives, draw parallels with historical conflict failures, and emphasize a desire for diplomatic resolutions instead of military escalations. Concerns about the implications of actions involving Iran and the perceived aggressiveness of Israel dominate the discussions, showcasing a significant anti-war fervor.

United States

Israel

Iran

Pakistan

You have never been pro Israel, you claim this but there is no evidence of it and it does not contribute anything to your argument, and it is therefore a bad faith ploy to seem like a bigger ideological threat than you actually are. You are a gimmick account and you should be banned for participating in bad faith.

Previous-Mango3851

Israel, like most modern countries, has nukes so that countries are scared to attack them (doesn’t seem to work so well). Iran wants nukes so that they can use them on Israel, the US, and any other countries they happen to hate.

Zealousideal_Key2169

&gt;So how can the double standard be justified by Israel’s supporters?

Pretty simple, actually.

Iran received nuclear tech and know-how by signing on to the NPT and committing to never use the knowledge and tech for military purposes.

Israel did not receive its nuclear tech and know-how via the NPT, and did not commit to anything.

Iran is held to a pretty simple 'standard' - it committed to never developing nukes, and turns out it deceived the international community and made a mockery out of the NPT.

Israel is not held to that 'standard' because it did not commit to anything nor breach that treaty.

Hope this helps.

triplevented

&gt;It feels like the world is on the brink of WW3.

Unfortunately, it does feel this way. 

Having two standards is not a double standard, per se. 

For instance, in Boxing, they have weight classes, so in the ring, the two competitors are even. Now if Israel, weighing in at 240lbs were allowed to box as a feather-weight, that would be an unfair advantage because Israel is given a different standard to get in the ring. However, telling a 240 lbs boxer to fight in the Heavy Weight division and telling 100Lb boxer he can only fight in the Feather-Weight division is not setting a double standard. It is just two standards, one for the big guy and one for the small guy. This is completely fair and is not considered a "double standard" 

Israel is a Democratic country with tremendous growth and advancement. The tech and military sectors are best in the world. They have a stable government and stable economy. Israel has never started an offensive war. They have best in class air forces and rocket technologies. In the past 50 years, Israel has not once threaten anyone with their nukes. 

Iran is rule by the most evil authoritarian in the world. The Ayatollah sold out the country to fight wars for 30 years. They armed terrorist militias all over the world. They are the number one state sponsor of Terror. Their national anthem is "Death to America; Death to Israel". They have express intent to kill all infidels and have acted on the intent by supplying rockets and weapons to proxies to be fired at Israeli civilians. In this war, they've shot 350 ballistic missiles and all of them were targeting civilian and residential areas. Iran has been promising to nuke Israel for 20 years. 

So, yes, rightfully so, just like in boxing, your weight puts you in divisions. 

Iran had proven to the world that they do not meet the standard for possessing nuclear weapons. 

Hell, they don't even meet the standard for having a baseball bat; IRGC uses bats to beat teenage girls that don't cover their hair.

thedudeLA

here is a fresh video with israeli speak directly to an irania soldier serving the irgc regime, now you tell me if you think those type should own nuclear weapons and that thier hate towards israel isnt just blind hate backed by radical islam.

  
[https://youtu.be/70O2l-7zbTg?si=wiDcKIH6tjS6PTK\_](https://youtu.be/70O2l-7zbTg?si=wiDcKIH6tjS6PTK_)

Front_Requirement893

Israel wants nukes as a deterrent Iran wants them to use them

Lumpy-Cost398

Israel's supporters would defend their nuke program by saying that Israel needs it because i is surrounded by bat$hit jihadist barbaric enemies who would do anything to kill Jews. 

And Israel doesn't reciprocate because if they did, they wouldn't have enemies left. Instead of 2% dead in Gaza it would be 100% which is exactly what Hamas would do to Israel if they could.

UnitDifferent3765

Iran explicitly threatened to use nuclear weapons and their ballistic missiles to annihilate Israel, from that moment on they cannot ever be trusted to have any kind of nuclear capability and Israel is 100% right to not accept ANY of their “promises”, Iran is a fundamentalist radical Islamist regime, maybe if the regime topples and they become a democracy and not fund terror across the globe they can have it.

They can’t have it for the same reason North Korea is a threat to global peace and to their own civilians

OmryR

ridefakie

The reason for this opaque approach is the US and other countries didn't want nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. It would be extremely dangerous if there were a nuclear arms race in such a volatile region. 

WWIII already started. Putin invading Ukraine will be remembered as the start. Americans need to stop pretending we can duck this fight. Made that mistake in the last two.

Top_Plant5102

It is just a double-standard, and it's a Western lie that Iran shouldn't have nukes because they're dangerous. The truth is that they don't want Iran to have nukes because it would mean Israel wouldn't be able to get away with what they're doing. Two countries having nukes basically takes open warfare off the table, because neither is willing to die. The old Mutually Assured Destruction.

Which means Israel isn't even close to finishing what they've started. Their goal has always been complete domination of the Middle-east. Iran having nukes stops that in its tracks.

Caboose0000

When it comes to Islamic radicalism, there should be no discussion about equality or justification. This ideology is inherently destructive and must be confronted and eradicated without excuses, without ‘buts’, and without trying to rationalize it.

Manoftruth2023

&gt;What do Israel’s supporters say in response to the argument that Israel’s secrecy about nuclear weapons create a double standard that undermines international efforts to police Iran’s nuclear technology?

I don't understand the question. Would you rather Israel openly declared itself a state possessing nuclear weapons? Do you think it would help with anything?

Pretty much everyone agrees that Iran shouldn't have access to nuclear weapons because they are direct threat to Israel, to the Middle East and to the whole world. In the meantime, nothing bad happened because of (alleged) Israel's nuclear program. That's your "standard".

&gt;Surely the existence of Israel within its recognised borders is something for them to be grateful for. Why it is worth trying to claim more land if it increases the risk of that country being internationally isolated or one day destroyed?

Because this is not how it works. Palestinian terrorists or Iranian IRGC aren't going to say "gee, Israel is no longer expanding settlements, maybe we should scale down our terrorist activities too, to show our appreciation". The opposite is true, they will double down on any sign of weakness. Sending a signal that you're bending under pressure is inviting more pressure.

It's also worth keeping in mind that the talk of "expanding settlements" and "taking land" is vastly exaggerated by anti-Israel propaganda. Despite some minor changes, handful of so-called "outposts" and grandiose plans, in practical terms, settlements were about 5% of WB 30 years ago and are still about 5% today.

That said, while many in Israel oppose settlements for practical and ideological reasons, now as we know for a fact there won't be any kind of peace with Palestinians in the foreseeable future, it's becoming politically difficult to prevent making some use of the disputed land. After all, Israel has absolutely nothing to lose by doing that.

knign

&gt;The most concrete evidence (available to the general public) of Israel’s nuclear weapons comes from a former technician at the nuclear site who leaked information to a British newspaper in the mid 80s.

Actually you are out of date on that one.  Obama as punishment leaked a bunch of materials from the USA from the 1960s and 70s talking about the Israeli nuclear program very explicitly.

&gt;What do Israel’s supporters say in response to the argument that Israel’s secrecy about nuclear weapons create a double standard that undermines international efforts to police Iran’s nuclear technology?

Semi true.  In theory, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is voluntary.  Israel never signed while Iran did.  Iran could choose to withdraw but never has (example North Korea in 2003).  More importanty the NPT accepts the existence of nuclear states like the USA or France.   If Israel were to sign it would be signing up as an existing nuclear power.

&gt;I increasingly feel that Israel relies on double standards that undermine the very idea of international law and order.

I don't think that's true.  Israel mostly relies on a correct understanding of International Law which runs contrary to UN hypocrisy when it comes to Israel.

&gt;but surely Israel could, at the very least stop expanding the settlements.

They could if they agreed they were in the wrong.  They don't.  The USA didn't stop expanding into former Mexican territory after the Mexican American War but rather increased the pace.  Here is a chart of California's population: 

https://preview.redd.it/8kxabh6ovq7f1.jpeg?width=1426&amp;format=pjpg&amp;auto=webp&amp;s=464f369bf562a988848424f08e935160e0047cea

JeffB1517

[This should clear things up](https://youtu.be/hqqNyFbhock?si=pqk253h05RGZ1MmY)

0hioHotPocket

[deleted]

I'm confused. Do you consider the fact that the U.S. has nuclear weapons to be a double standard? Russia? France? India?

Lots of countries want nuclear weapons. Nobody wants anyone else to have nuclear weapons. It's not that hard to understand.

Routine-Equipment572

Why people always ignore how Iran declared over the years to destroy Israel which is a call for war?

Professional_Term140

Israel isn’t hellbent on world domination. Iran is. There’s a reason Iran having nukes is  contentious. Nobody really trusts them to not bring us to MAD. MAD being the thing that keeps those that have nukes from using them.

OiCWhatuMean

There’s no double standard. 

Israel is concerned about the Iranian nuclear program because Israel is concerned that Iran would try to wipe Israel off the map as they confessed is the plot. 

Israel isn’t worried about the Israeli nuclear weapons because Israel never threatened to wipe Israel off the map. 

So both countries are actually held to the same standard.

JosephL_55

This "changing my heart" schtick of yours got old a year ago.

https://preview.redd.it/mbvbiyherq7f1.png?width=1262&amp;format=png&amp;auto=webp&amp;s=e41c237c95e879afe1a8253847a11f049d81aa81

Deciheximal144

a) Israel is not party to the NPA, but Iran is. Thus, Israel is entirely within its rights to be secretive about its nuclear program. The idea that Iran would play fair if Israel allowed its nuclear facilities to be expected is an idiotic fantasy.


b) Iran, a regime of Islamic lunatics, has constantly called for the destruction of Israel and has been attacking Israel for years through its proxies. Nuclear weapons would shield Iran from counterattacks or make them much more risky. Israel has never called for the destruction of Iran.

Reasonable-Notice439

/u/corbynista2029 (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/1lf742e/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_israeli_strikes_on_iran/), 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

It looks like you're making some assumptions here. What is the intelligence community you are referencing and are there any references or citations you can point to?

According to the news reports at least, what prompted Israel to act is acquisition by Iran of components that only can be used for nuclear detonation. I hadn't seen more information provided than this so it's not really possible to ascertain their validity (didn't expect anything else, though).

The graph you have shared does not provide a lot of context and I don't feel is a good reference. Israel has put a lot of effort into dismantling Iranian nuclear infrastructure, it's difficult to know which action - or diplomacy - to attribute the number of centrifuges to.

I'm not really changing your view here, but rather pointing out that it appears your current view is based on some assumptions that are a matter of belief, rather than fact.

TacticalSniper

So if like you said Iran can easily convert their 60% uranium to weapons grade, wouldn't that support the Israeli narrative that Iran could acquire nuclear weapons very soon? That would, to me, indicate that destroying the centrifuges at Natanz and preventing that final step of enrichment is one of the most effective strategies to prevent nuclear strikes.

Iran has been getting as close as possible to the edge without going over because then they technically haven't violated any agreements until they take that final step, so they're just doing 90% of the work.

HypnotizedCow

Iran cant *accelerate their nuclear weapons program* if their nuclear sites have been destroyed and their government collapses…

Sad-Paramedic-8523

I don't know why the semantics of bomb building is so important to you. The purpose of the enriched uranium is for a nuclear weapon. Uranium enrichment is the hardest part to protect and conceal (second to testing but by then it's too late).

The JCPOA is similarly only a symantic solution. Had the USA stuck to the conditions, the 10 year restrictions would already have lapsed. The only things that would have changed are: Iran avoiding 10 years of sanctions, and America would now be fine with Iran enriching Uranium.

There is no tactical difference between 1. Being weeks away from assembl8ng a bomb, but not doing it. And 2. Having a nuclear weapon but not using it. If Iran having nuclear capabilities doesn't concern you you should just say that.

fghhjhffjjhf

You are aware that Israël is actively destroying nuclear capabilities inside of Iran, right?

Tydeeeee

&gt;This results in a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy on Israel's side: they claim that Iran IS building a bomb, therefore they must take military action against Iran, but this will likely lead to Iran to actually build a bomb ASAP.

They likely would have done this anyway, just to be able to threaten mutually assured destruction. I don't believe that Israel actually attacking is going to accelerate their timeline significantly. If you disagree, might I ask why you think Iran would have been less than hasty in getting a nuclear weapon operational, given the circumstances?

Rhundan

“Iran is not building a weapon of mass destruction”…

I actually agree, they are building DOZENs of those.

kingofwale

&gt;CMV: The Israeli strikes on Iran put Israel in a greater risk of nuclear warfare

Any evidence for your speculation? 

It *can*, yes. But, nothing definitive as you claim in your title.

The_Glum_Reaper

Your reasoning relies on the assumptions that the Iranian regime will have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons once the Israeli attacks are over, and that Israel will stop its current attacks on Iran before its objectives are reached.

It is highly questionable at best that Iran's regime will be able to continue to act with as much freedom as before, as the demise of the regime itself is a significant possibility. Militarily, Iran has shown itself to be all bark and no bite. Its terrorist proxies arguably have been more of a challenge to Israel than Iran itself. It turns out that Iran's deterrence strategy all along was built on bluff and bluster.

It is also highly questionable that Israel will be made to stop before Iran's nuclear weapons program is fully destroyed, or at least significantly set back. There's no political will in Europe or America to pressure Israel to stop, as nobody in the West thinks Iran should be allowed to have nukes. Russia is in no position to come to Iran's support, as it was Iran that has been supporting Russia during the latter's disasterous war against Ukraine.

If anything, recent events have vindicated the use of hard military power and discredited diplomacy. In the recent talks, Iran thought it was in a position to dictate terms and ignored Trump's 60 day deadline for reaching a deal on enrichment. Israel has spent decades trying to derail Iran's nuclear ambitions through non-military means, and it may very well turn out that all Israel needed to do along was sustain a few days or weeks of direct attacks on Iran, not only to destroy its nuclear program but to bring the regime threatening Israel with annihilation to its knees.

yallakoala

\&gt; But diplomacy worked

Bullshit. It work just as well as Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact worked. 

If it worked then why mosad kept sabotaging their nuclear program? Why did they kept making underground labs and how come they are making progress?

Making A-bomb is massive undertaking, its not open knowledge and its an engineering feat. 

Diplomacy was a fiction on paper. Having a nuke is immense power a dictatorship like iran can't pass it up. 

Also there is not a single country in the middle east that wants iran to own a nuke.

Nobody is happy israel has them, but they are not afraid israel would use them to attack.

gottimw

Iran regime change is going to happen in few months or weeks 

After Iran is gone no one in the world  is going to threaten Israel or is actively doing anti Israel stuff 

So I think on Israel POV it’s a big win 

Just remove one regime and they will have their security permanently

iL0veLittleGirl

&gt;They are enriching uranium to 60%,

There is exactly one reason to have 60% enriched uranium in 100kgs quantities. Feedstock for a nuclear weapon.

&gt;But [diplomacy worked](https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/images/Iran__Total_Installed_Advanced_Centrifuges_By_Date_August_2024.png) before until Trump pulled out of the deal America 

The diplomacy was that Iran froze a few months short of breakout in return the US did not push maximal sanctions.

&gt; This results in a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy **on Iran's side**.

Its is a deeply unstable situation that Iran had kept in place under enormous economic cost.

Irans entire deference strategy has imploded, they had their fanatics in Hamas and Hezbollah who would unleash massive rocket attacks on Israel or an Arab state should Iran be attacked. Those have gone. They had their drones that could swamp air defences in they were attacked, the new [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced\_Precision\_Kill\_Weapon\_System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Precision_Kill_Weapon_System) meant drone attacks were being repelled cheaply. Their attacks last year showed ABM systems were now able to repel a large portion of Irans ballistics missiles. Its ally Assad was gone.

Then it breached the nuclear deal.

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3v6w2qr12o](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3v6w2qr12o)

Iran is a horrific state that sent its murderous proxies into help Russia and Assad as they flattened entire cities, used nerve gas and starvation in a war that killed 700 000 people, they used their violent proxies to keep Lebanon destabilised and poor to retain a controlling influence. They are the main driver of the instability in Yemen that has killed over 500 000 people. They use their proxies Iraq to keep that country unstable. Their repression in Iran is so brutal my comment would be deleted by automderation if I posted details. There treatment of females in prison is ..... very very dark given they take in young teen girls.

All of this is ignored or blustered away because they make speeches about how much they hate the west and the Tankies love it. They love anyone who is anti western.

Iran is everything any decent human being opposes, so its only natural the far left will rally behind them and demand we trust them to be enriching hundreds of kilograms of uranium just as a "negotiation strategy" because they are so trustable and honest.

The same people who 15 years ago were telling us Iran only had a civilian nuclear program (civilian fuel is 5% enriched).

"Diplomacy worked" perfectly well if you want Iran able to get a bomb as soon as the US is distracted. It's what most tankies would love to happen. Diplomacy working would be Iran only having 5% enriched uranium for power and its regime allowing free and fair elections. The last thing many really want, even if they will deny it.

People just want a nuclear armed Iran. Every single step of this process they lie and tell us they are not going for weapons, it was just research, it was just civilian power, it was not highly enriched uranium.  It's been decades of lies now their last lie is they have just built a trillion dollar weapons program and decades of sanctions as a "negotiating strategy". It's just one last hope to run interference to allow Iran to nuclearise.

And Reddit eats it up.

IndividualSkill3432

What a naive and uninformed position. Here are some of the main things you've missed:

1. It doesn't take much to enrich from 60% to 90%. Building a stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% is exactly what you do when you're building towards a bomb, and at some point you'll convert it to 90% when you're closer to completion. You only need around 3% for energy purposes, mind you, and Iran is an oil-rich country that doesn't care about environmental considerations. Even if it did care, it could always import uranium, which is what most countries with energy programmes do.

2. Under the JCPOA, Iran continued enriching uranium to forbidden levels and striving for a bomb against the agreement's clauses. The JCPOA effectively acted as a cover for Iran, which is exactly what Israel was warning against from the start.

3. It's going to be incredibly hard for Iran to pick up its nuclear programme from the rubble and rebuild it to a state in which it poses a threat. If you think there's more risk now, *after* much of the infrastructure has been destroyed, you don't know anything about how munitions work. 

4. Iran's motivation to eliminate Israel is already dialed to 11. There's nothing that Israel can do to *increase* this motivation, nor to decrease it unfortunately. This means that the risk is measured only in capability, not in motivation, and this brings us back to point #3.

kinrove1386

If the US gets involved what will they use to do the nuclear research and development?

BuffZiggs

Your narrative shows lack of research and limited knowledge of the underlying political issues. You tried to create arguments but you have a myopic mind. 

Large_Oil489

“below sea level” ?

Is English your first language?

True_Fill9440

Fascinating breakdown. But here's the catch no one's talking about: if Iran *wasn't* building a bomb yet, have the strikes now made it inevitable? DOT just dropped a stellar explainer that strips the politics and dives into the history, hypocrisy, and fallout. A solid 6-min read if you're into nuance. [https://www.dot.news/post/68517d151d444e000266f32d-0004?lang=en](https://www.dot.news/post/68517d151d444e000266f32d-0004?lang=en)

ImpossibleArt4566

**Iran Exaggerating or Misrepresenting Its Nuclear Program to Provoke a Major Strike? (Bait-and-Switch Strategy)**

**Strategic Deception Is Common in Warfare**

Nations often use misinformation or conceal true capabilities to manipulate adversaries’ perceptions.

By exaggerating nuclear progress, Iran could provoke a preemptive strike that unites its allies and population against a common external enemy.

**Creating a Rallying Point**

A major attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could serve as a powerful catalyst for nationalist fervor and allied military mobilization.

This would justify increased Iranian aggression and bring hesitant allies like Russia or Hezbollah fully into the conflict 

**Baiting the “Goat” into Acting Prematurely**

By making its nuclear program seem more advanced and threatening, Iran could try to draw the Western “goat” into a costly and protracted conflict, expecting to exploit weaknesses and gain strategic advantage.

 **Information Control and Secret Programs**

Iran’s opaque military posture allows it to hide true nuclear capabilities or stage false flags.

There could be dual-track programs: some genuine progress, some bluffing.

 **Historical Parallels**

 Several countries have used nuclear bluffing or inflated capabilities to alter geopolitical dynamics (e.g., North Korea’s nuclear claims).

 Iran has previously used nuclear ambiguity to gain diplomatic leverage.

Risks of This Strategy for Iran:

If the West calls the bluff or acts decisively, Iran could suffer devastating damage before gaining full support.

The gambit depends on alliances holding firm and public opinion sustaining prolonged conflict.

Could accelerate Iran’s isolation and economic hardship if unsuccessful.

 **Prophetic Angle**

 If this is a “bait and switch,” it fits the prophetic theme of deception and sudden escalation leading to the “goat’s” fierce retaliation.

Iran’s apparent nuclear threat may be partly real, partly posturing designed to trigger the next phase in Daniel 8.

 Iran could be using a deliberate mix of truth and deception about its nuclear program to provoke a major strike—aiming to rally allies and escalate the conflict on its terms.

This aligns with strategic logic and fits well into a prophetic scenario of escalating deception and warfare before the ultimate “goat” intervention.

open-minded-person

There's no way Israel started this operation without having a plan to destroy Fordo. Shaldag was training for this last month- that seems like an insane mission but they were training for it. 

As far as a lend/lease situation, B-2s are not planes a pilot can just get into and fly. It would take a long training period.

If Israel is successful at dragging Americans into a third world war, it will lead to a new age of antisemitism of the likes of the interwar period. It will be plainly obvious how Israeli meddling in American politics led us here. It is not a good look to be so arrogant and self-assured as a nation, but of course, they'd never have the self-awareness to check the mirror.

Sweaty-Spring700

Also, if Iran remains steadfast like it has the past two years and doesn't take Israel's bait, I could see Israel deploying their own nukes to attack Iran. Netanyahu will pull "the whole world abandoned us Jews!!" card and we're off to the races

RapaxIII

So once Israel destroys Iran's nuclear weapons program and now the Iranians are even more pissed off and dedicated to getting nuclear weapons, what's Israel genius plan? Why does Israel think that killing the head of a military or nuclear program will result in the military/nuke program just simply stopping?

War with Iran is Israel's goal, it knows that it's running out of time to accomplish this and is lashing out trying to draw Iran to make the first move but it ain't happening. After this generation of boomers, the US perception of Israel will collapse. Once we start seeing American troops in Iran, support for Israel is over

For context. USA cannot enter the conflict without risking China, Russia and Pakistan to enter as well. 

Iran’s nuclear program has been carried out with support from China and Russia. 

To completely take out Iran’s nuclear program, USA needs to enter the conflict by providing military assistance. 

Arab countries who previously viewed Iran as a mad gunman, are thinking that Israel is the new mad gunman. These countries with exception for Qatar seek stability. If they should to contain Israel or Iran is debated given the recent strikes of Israel.

Good_Lack_192

"Iran has responded with massive missile and drone strikes to Israel's preemptive airstrike on nuclear facilities and military targets on Friday, June 13, 2025, supported by smaller-scale operations inside Iran by the Mossad."

Mossad HQ's is gone! It was destroyed by a hypersonic missile!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITlhPYKTNRw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITlhPYKTNRw)

Leather_Preference67

I don't think (1) is realistic. Trump may or may not go for (2), TACO and all that. I think (3) is the most realistic, with a two important caveats: One is that this may take time, and both Iran and Israel may sffer greatly beforehand. The second comes from considering the mirror image of what Israel did - it felt it was in an existential threat, and so decided to declare war on Iran, without explicit backing of its allies, expecting thousands of Israelis might die (and many more unjured and made homeless), and realizing the risk this poses for ME stability. The flipside of this is that this war must have convinced Iran that Israel is an existential threat to it (or at least its regime), and the best way to deter Israel is for Iran to have nuclear capabilities. Iran is a big country. While it could agree to compy with intl inspectors, surely it would still be able to develop its program in secret. Long term, I think this is what will eventually happen.

No-Excitement3140

I don’t believe Israel will use tactical nuclear weapons. While using such weapons may be permissible under customary international law, such a move would be a major, major change in a core Israeli policy. The notion Israel’s military establishment, which is normally conservative (in the sense it doesn’t like rocking the boat), will agree to introduce tactical nuclear weapons at this time is highly, highly dubious. 🤨 

It’s more likely that the U.S. will intervene or that Israel will send in special forces (with Mossad’s operatives qualifying as “special forces) to the remaining nuclear sites, to destroy them using conventional means of warfare. Or that both will happen.

BizzareRep

Big risk that the regime falls and we see Syria 2.0 with protracted and destabilising series of revolutions or a bunch of ISIS types inheriting a lot of atomic know how. Need thought now about how to avoid that, basically, and I’m worried that the opportunistic nature of the attack means the pitch hasn’t been properly rolled. 

I listened to a really interesting commentator saying that the concern is that Israel isn’t viewed well in Iran and the normal resistance won’t be well mobilised because it’s Israel.  I wonder if it’s worth doing more work with Saudi , Jordan and UAE to mobilise some Arabic forces in support of regime change. Help with  transition to a less insane form of leadership.

Haven’t thought a great deal about it but would be interested to hear people’s thoughts. Regime might not fall at this point but it inevitably will in future so feels worth considering.

Princeofpawns1

Interesting analysis - thanks!

For my part, I think we can rule option 1 out. Deploying a nuclear weapon in anger hasn't been done since 1945 because of the unthinkable precedent it would set. At least, here's hoping that.

pubemaster_uno

No one cares what you see because you don’t know shit

Beautiful-Respond878

It's nice to see Iran lose some of their remaining F-14s, at least. The IDF took out attack helicopters today.

Israel is quickly running low on interceptor missiles whilst Iran has thousands of missiles and is only lobbing a handful at a time to deplete Israel’s defenses. Missiles are cheap for Iran, interceptors are magnitudes more expensive for Israel, who will need to start rationing them within 10-12 days. They’re already at best 70% effective at downing these missiles instead of 90% for most rockets. Iran is probably not even using many of its best rockets yet. 

Israel claims they’re gonna go after Fordow with or without US’ support, but not sure how that makes sense. 

I don’t think Iran will give up its nukes, especially after this. They now feel a much stronger need for them. 

Americans polling shows very little support for US involvement.

Ok-Cryptographer7424

We do not know "How The Israel-Iran War Will End" Why wouldn't wait couple of days and just see?

vovap_vovap

What about 4 - Israel is unable to destroy the nuclear program in full because of Fordow and Iran more or less runs out of missile launch sites, and an unpleasant status quo reigns with no formal agreement.

TheCloudForest

I’m not military trained, so my example might not matter much. But, in my profession, as an anesthesia provider, we train for almost any scenario, both predictable and unpredictable. This is achieved by real life hands-on, as well as high level simulation (which I believe the Army has). We even train for crisis management, above and beyond the “traditional” in-OR what-ifs. What I can say is a standard motto within the anesthesia community is that our job is 95% boredom, and 5% SHTF moments. We keep current, for that 5%. To your OP point, that 5% is both terror, and exhilaration. And what I can tell you is that I enjoy the 95% much more. I’m not sure front line soldiers would agree or not, but I’m betting they sure are happy when they go home, alive. Also, the risk of PTSD is much lower, I’m assuming.

RamsPhan72

I agree with you that if Iran crosses a red line, we have to act. And having a nuclear bomb is the ultimate line to cross.

It's hard to say right now. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are probably the 2 biggest examples in our minds about toughening up our military through forced action. In both cases, the US was on the receiving end of a massive terror attack that caught us by surprise.

With Iran, maybe not unlike Vietnam, we'd be something of the aggressor, regardless of reason. How much is pounding Iran proving/improving our military strength? You might get combat experience for people, but what's the long-term impact? Where Pearl Harbor and 9/11 likely drove a LOT to join the military out of sense of duty, I don't see something like that coming from an attack on Iran. It's not likely to be a meaningful test of strength or an act that drives recruitment.

Overall, I don't think it would mean a lot. We'd bully Iran and have it over in a hurry (little long-term impact on our military strength) or end up in another crappy, prolonged occupation in the Middle East (which tangibly hurt the reputation of our military domestically and internationally).

cubs223425

This is like when a premier league team plays a Korean league 2 team for a friendly lmao

Rubentraj

/u/paikiachu (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1ldh77x/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_currently_the_best_strategy/), 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)

If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it's almost certain that rival states in the region, especially Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and possibly Egypt, will pursue nukes of their own. 

Right now, Iran relies on asymmetric tools, proxies, ballistic missiles, drones, ro compete with wealthier or more militarily advanced neighbors. Nukes might seem like an upgrade, but if everyone else gets them too, Iran’s relative power doesn’t increase, it decreases, because it lacks the economic, technological, and conventional military capacity to compete in a region where everyone has nuclear weapons.

Iran might think nukes would grant it immunity from attack, but if everyone has nukes, the deterrent value flattens. Israel already has second-strike capabilities. The Gulf states might eventually develop the same. Mutual deterrence then becomes a high-stakes balancing act, and Iran’s leverage, built over decades via strategic ambiguity and regional threats, gets neutralized

aWhiteWildLion

1. It is not in Iran's best strategic interest to pursue nuclear armament.


They won't be allowed to acquire them, and if it's discovered (or there's enough evidence that can be planted) that they have them, they will be attacked. Severely. Possibly debilitating.


They've convinced enough people they are reckless enough to use them. That's where they screwed up.


That provides enough reasonable ammo for their enemies to say - reasonably - they said they were going to nuke is, and we believed them.


If they were smarter, they would've been less openly homicidal. So they could plausibly claim it was for defense. 


Nobody reasonable - at risk from direct attack or not - is going to let a crazy guy that's already tried to kill his neighbors openly buy a gun when he continually tells everyone "as soon as I get this gun, Imma go kill that guy over there".


So, it's not in their strategic best interest because they've already forced everyone's hand. They were too believable and so all the next moves are decided. If they get a nuke, they'll get nuked - figuratively if not literally.






2. A way for the Iranian government to achieve its goals of maintaining power and continue threatening Israel (given the current geopolitical context) without the acquisition of nuclear weapons.


The latter isn't a given. Yes they hate them, but leaders come and go. Khamenei is 86 and could go any day. Chances are there are those that hate Israel they could follow him, but as long as there are a few practical people among them they may realize that particular objective is not conducive to long term health.


Especially if Israel continues to find ways to target leaders. Or, more intelligently, of Israel pulls and America and just finds ways to oust people that don't play nice with what Israel wants. 


Staying in power however I think is something that's more plausible to say will be the primary objective of the current and successive regimes. 


To that end, once again if they acquire nukes they will be hunted and killed. Further, if they have nukes there's a plausible scenario where they use them. Once again they'll be hunted and killed. 


No, the best strategy to stay in power is the current one. Say they're pursuing them and blame the West for perpetually preventing it. It pisses off everyone in the country and fosters further hatred for the external enemy which only improves their internal support. All while keeping people distracted. 


This will allow them to continue to fund other entities who can try to achieve their various objectives (like destroying Israel and America).


No, actually *getting* nukes will both prevent them from staying in power and will result in them being bombed to the stone age which will prevent the pursuit of their objectives wrt Israel.

General_Day_3931

Game theory? The fuck?

Anyway, it's not in Iran's immediate best interests because they're currently engaged in a conventional war that saw them lose a fair amount of their nuclear refining capacity, as well as a good chunk of their top nuclear scientists and military leaders (if you believe western sources).

At this point, unless Iran already has a pile big enough to create a nuclear weapon with the scientists still alive, something that I find unlikely, it would take too many resources from immediate war needs to get a nuclear weapon, as that would essentially amount to a super weapon given Iran's history and resources. This isn't three mile island, this is nuclear material that's been blown the fuck up in the equivalent of 1944 new Mexico.

Instead, Iran should focus on the best way to conduct conventional war so as to rally sympathetic countries. Iran should also be wooing China, although I think that's a long shot for them. Their traditional conventional-war ally of Russia still has its own tail between its legs, so I don't think they'll be much help to Iran.

HippyKiller925

1. If Irans interest is staying on the map, then pursuing nuclear armament is suicide. Israel and the US have been clear Iran can’t have nukes. It’s already been proven Israel will flatten cities full of civilians to remove potential threats. Iran have a big army but their technology, particularly their airforce is unequipped for this war. If they pursued nukes, the likelihood is they would be destroyed before they would be ready - which is what is happening currently. In theory if they could develop one in complete secrecy (which I assume they’ve tried to do already considering it would violate agreements they signed) it might change the power scape - but due to the level of surveillance this is very unlikely. 

2. One of Irans only options for consolidating power and opposing Israel is through supplying militant groups and insurgencies - which again it’s been doing. The problem is none of these are equipped enough to do more than really irritate Israel. It can’t even really leverage its oil exports as neither Israel or the West are major consumers of Iranian oil. 

Regardless Iran doesn’t have any good options, but nuclear armament would just accelerate their fall I think. Having nukes = could change the dynamic, developing the nukes = likely destruction of the country and government 

Irans government have already reached out through private channels that they want to arrange talks to end the war. Israel will probably continue until they’ve bombed anything worth bombing target wise I suspect.

MundiVeritas

No, they can't and wouldn't use nukes. The whole idea of "The Nuke" is really more of a fantasy than a reality in today's world. In reality, Iran would prefer to play the victim just like Israel would prefer to play the victim or any other country. Because a Victim has at least some kind of Leverage -- Moral Leverage. Iran isn't going to annihilate itself just to kill some random people in a city in Israel.

LaquaviusRawDogg

Unlike Iraq, there are credible evidence that the strategy of Iran prior to the current attacks was to create nuclear weaponry. This is the difference - Israel is attacking Iran, with the support of the west because everyone knows that.

Your argument is weird. It's like Iran tried to pursue nuclear weapons and got attacked therefore it should pursue nuclear weapons to not get attacked. The likely thing that would happen if they continue to do so is that the US would get involved, and possibly the UK as well - both sent forces to the area already. 

It's true that Netanyahu would like to see a regime change, but if Iran goes to the US today and says that they are willing to stop enrichment - the US could force a ceasefire. If you heard, both Trump and Netanyahu said things that hint to it. This is the way you're looking for. Even if Israel doesn't agree, the US agreeing alone is enough.

comeon456

Some relevant points:

* You are basing your argument on the assumption that the possession of nuclear weapons has a demonstrated ability to keep repressive regimes in power and avert efforts toward regime change from outside. Why would that be true?
   * North Korea spent \~50 of its \~70-year history without nuclear armaments; it's a lot more plausible that China, rather than nukes, is the reason no Western power has intervened there.
   * When the regime change substantially comes from within (e.g., an outside power arms the revolutionaries), how would the regime use nukes to stop such a change? Who would it nuke, itself?
* Meanwhile, North Korea *has* demonstrated that *the plausible threat* of developing nuclear capabilities can create concessions from geopolitical opponents. If you view Iran as having attempted to maintain a *plausible threat* for as long as possible (without crossing the line), its actions in the last 30 years make a good deal more sense.
* Similarly, if you view Israel as wanted to conclusively remove Iran's *plausible threat* of developing nuclear weapons (in order to greatly reduce its international influence and open it to more direct intervention at a time when its longtime ally, Russia, is clearly unable to help ... well, that also makes a good deal more sense.

In light of that fact, it's hard to see the meaningful benefit that Iran gets from developing nuclear weapons, and easy to see that they might actually be quite a ways from being able to do that.

badass_panda

To what end? 

Your argument implies that if Iran gave up on developing nukes, underwent regime change and became a western ally or at least not am enemy, that would somehow be a less than ideal outcome. 

Game theory is outcome oriented. What is the desirable outcome?

seanos_nachos

The last example of the USA directly intervening in the Middle East was to topple Iraq because they were believed to have WMDs.

At the moment Israel is not getting support from the West for it's attacks on Israel because the consensus is that it is not actively developing weapons at this time. After Iraq and Afghanistan western countries don't want to be tied down in the occupation of a large country, so they will not invade Iran unless it develops nukes. Developing nukes can lead to a clear failure state unless the nukes themselves serve as a deterrent.

Developing one nuclear warhead is not a deterrent. France has had decades of analysis put into it's own stockpile on the basis of maintaining what it views as a minimum effective deterrent, which means that it has around 290 nuclear warheads including those that are on submarines that can survive a first strike. 

Iran cannot magically jump from developing weapons to having an effective deterrent and in that window the West would almost certainly topple it and overthrow the government.

It does not help Iran to pursue nukes.

Toverhead

The military operation carried out by Israel proves what many geopolitical experts have been saying for a long time.

*Nuclear proliferation is associated with a huge risk for a country that is trying to develop its own nuclear technology.*

The risk of an attack increases the closer a country is to completing the technology. The threats that should be expected are, as it was in current case, an open conventional strike on critical infrastructure or a discouraging tactical nuclear strike fe in an unpopulated isolated area. Sabotage intelligence operations - from attempts to assassinate key personnel to destabilization of the government. Severe international sanctions and isolation of international trade.

There are 3 main strategies for developing nuclear weapons.
 - protection of an allied nuclear power or a strong network of smaller allies (RU, CH - Korea N; CH, possibly Sauds - Pakistan)
- enforcing tacit consent from an allied power (unofficially US - Israel)
- nuclear sprint (early preparation of technological resources and then accelerated development by all available means)

All of them require the highest degree of conspiracy (this cannot be completely concealed in today's world, but it is possible to ensure the proper security of key facilities, personnel and their families), good planning and preparation for certain reciprocal reactions.

Historically, only 2 countries have acquired nuclear weapons on their own, without technological support and protection from powers - India and South Africa.

Iran's attempt to independently develop nuclear weapons ended in failure (probably). It should be assumed that future proliferation attempts will end with a similar preemptive strike and perhaps severe economic sanctions. 

Iran's current proliferation strategy does not bode well for success and does not appear to be in Iran's best interests. Iran's lack defence capabilities from Israel strikes, there is no world superpower strong enough and willing to back Iran's attempts. 
The nuclear arsenal serves mainly for deterrence, I suspect that no country is serious about actually using nuclear weapons. 
The possibility that Iran could complete construction of several warheads is a certain achievement of a strategic goal, uncertainty gives them the possibility of deterrence even if it is just a bluff.

sh00l33

You’re not thinking like an Islamist. If you want to be the Islamic regime you have to act like one. This means two things:

You need to want to destroy the Jews. If you renege on this commitment you will be betraying your principles. By extension, the radical elements within your organization will lose faith in your leadership and probably revolt.

You need to assert yourself across the world as a superpower. The Iranian regime is the inheritor of two great imperial legacies, that of Persia and that of Mohammad. Right now the world is ruled by superpowers that are neither of these. If you stop trying to assert yourself in the world you’ll be failing your ancestors. Can your people live with the shame? Can you? If not, why would they leave you in power.

In the modern world nuclear weapons solves both of these problems. You can nuke Israel, and make everybody scared of you. That is a huge win.

Furthermore, under both Islam and Capitalism, if you can’t assert yourself, you’re under somebody else. The world of geopolitics is sink or swim and the Iranians are sitting on a (literal) mountain of potential.

ADP_God

Here is my take, this is coming from a Soviet expat background and current US nuclear NNSA technical procurement, need I say more. 

I think Iran should play a very powerful short game; they either; 

A: Russia is already at a proxy war with the US, US guided and coordinated (Aegis) ATACMS missiles are practically shelling Kremlin at.this point, there is no plausible deniability for anything. So Iran can ask for a 90/10 deal; you give us either enriched uranium (HEU) and we Weill do testing and assembly or you guys deal us a genuine nuke we will give you in exchange next 50 years oil supply at .10% the price period. 

B. Russia ships 25,000 units of yellowcake, in exchange for a 90/20 oil deal 50 years. They would need three facilities to create the physics package. A centrifuge or mass-separator HEU producer which they need to work for several months to produce critical mass fissile. Then a milling grading facility to machine and assemble their pits. Also would need an explosive lensing lab to assemble the final device. 

The only tactical move here would be to nuke a major US base. Why? It would sap the tactical US resources in the region and show Israel and NATO that they can destroy Israel at any given time. They would have to have at lest 5 ready devices on hand though in case the bluff is called. 

  
But we all know none of that will be happening, this will be a classic invasion of the country with a dragged out counter-insurgency campaign led by US and coalition of sorts. There will not be a formal declaration of any kind and Israel might be installed as an occupying force in the country or at least a post-invasion strategic ally. 

The worry is that China and Russia would lose a light-crude oil supplier and regional dominance in the region as they are both geopolitical neighbors to the country. They might contribute to extending the insurgency war for decades. 

Military industrial complex will be the real winner as usual. 

  
Please be with you Mashallah.

RecommendationLazy57

I'm not really sure how valid any opinions, or the product of any debate on this issue can really be, when the parameters and logical conclusions that can be drawn, need to be based on the well established known facts and the well established, unquestionable, layout of the current geopolitical landscape influencing and influenced by these issues. 
The problem with that is; those known parameters, facts and fixed points, are few and far between, and difficult to draw any logic conclusions from, of any significant value, beyond the patently obvious simple things. The problem you have is; the substance you need to bulk all that out with, and the information required to base any debate on the issues, that leads to any meaningful destination, at the present, is just speculation that's based on information gathered from (old) data in the public domain, and heavily manipulated information from multinational news corporations, that's just, to all intent and purpose, pantomime. Either puppeted pantomime by the news Corps. Or the same thing, but from news corps. Puppeted by political leaders and other politicians. 


So basically; speculation on speculation that's, for all you know, or could know, speculation on speculation based on puppeted lies.  And its impossible to establish anything meaningful, when you dont know what's panto, and what's not, what's puppet and which ones are real boys, who wrote the scenes, and who the puppeteers are and who their puppeteers are. In short blind speculation on blind speculation.
 It's not even that you have a load of black and white facts, with a few subtle nuances in there to assume, or gaps in information to join. It's more like; you a couple of black and facts, set against (or lost among) a full spectrum of technicolor bullshit, presented by various media, all with different agendas.

Whats-true-freedom

Strategic interest wise: 

Look at north Korea as a whole. While i agree the madman with a finger on the big red button is a great deterrent. Their entire system is greatly harmed. 


With limited connections to the outside world growth becomes stagnant, 

be it the economy (lack of exports and imports which can lead to malnutrition and famines)

 medicine: (USA leads the world in groundbreaking medication and cancer and heart research)

lack of technology growth: (Maybe by the time Iran finished the WMD an even more terrifying weapon becomes introduced) 

Entertainment: any new technology won't come, any need joy be it game consoles, movies, cars, or lightsabers. 

Your tourism revenue gets killed as well, so while your stock piling your exports with no places to sell you also have no visitors stimulating your economy 

Finally it costs a lot to maintain and manufacture your nuclear arsenal, in the end irans infrastructure will crumble due to lack of funding 


This could lead to the Iranian public revolting against the leaders. Instead of being a leader, you could have your head chopped off 

Kim Jong Un is only in power because he struck immense fear and blocked off all internet to its people. Iran already has a movement going against the current regime. Sanctions and isolation would push the public over the edge and a revolution may happen.

Tangentkoala

“Currently”? 

The Iranian government has no air force or air defenses left.  That means it has no means of defense.

It has lost more than half of its missile launchers, and probably lost or used more than half of its missiles.  In a few days, it will have no launchers or missiles left.  That means it also soon will have no means of offense, and its offense to date has been limited to blowing up some buildings and killing 24 Israeli civilians.  

Within a week, the Israelis and probably the Americans will move to obliterating the IRGC’s land assets, such as tanks and artillery.  

The Israelis are also obliterating the regime’s HQs, media outlets, and other means of controlling the population.

The regime has no “current” capacity to pursue nukes.

It’s “best strategy” going forward would be to surrender, offer to destroy whatever is left of its nuclear and missile capacity, agree to strict monitoring that would bar it from rebuilding its nuclear or missile capacity, cease support of its proxies, and agree to recognize and normalize relations with Israel.   If all that happens, the attacks will stop and the regime may have a puncher’s chance of surviving in some form - before whatever is left of the IRGC and other assets gets obliterated.

No_Bet_4427

You are only looking at the end state, yes if their goal is what you stated and they can magically get nuclear weapons they should say yes. But, you have to look at the path. If Israel's position is the moment you are a month away from nuclear weapons we will bomb you until your regime falls or you are back to being years away then it makes no sense to pursue nuclear weapons (assuming here that Israel can follow through on that).

Put another way, nukes allow you to fuck with people without being attacked. But, if pursuing nukes leads to you getting attacked that is self defeating.

RandomName788

If you are not an Islamic fundamentalist, you will understand that the best choice for the Iranian government (an Islamic theocracy) may differ from the best choice for the Iranian people.

Israel and the United States are not aiming for the annihilation of the Iranian people. They are not demanding the division or reduction of Iranian territory. (This is an important difference between Palestine and Iran.)

If we assume that the Iranian people, not the Iranian government, are the decision-makers, then abandoning nuclear weapons and transitioning to a secular state could be more beneficial for the Iranian people.

minaminonoeru

Not gonna change your mind but worth noting two writers from Foreign Affairs agree with you:

[https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/real-threat-iran-tehran-most-dangerous-option-responding-israel](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/real-threat-iran-tehran-most-dangerous-option-responding-israel)  
[https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/israels-futile-air-war](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/israels-futile-air-war)

w1ntrl1te

We have been told Iran is days/weeks/months away from having nukes since the early 2000's. I am not fully convinced they don't already have a few crude, small nukes that they either produced but obviously not tested or acquired from Russian or Pakistan. I remember last year there were reports of some small earthquakes that some were wondering if were caused by underground tests. Israel does seem to have top notch intel so for them to go now, must mean something

1470Asylum

Their pursuit of nukes got them in this position. Now was definitely not the time, as they were vulnerable. Their best shot would be a geopolitical alignment, instead of just proxies. The US would be to try and stop such an alignment.

If Iran continues their pursuit of nukes the regime will probably fall. Israel would rather put troops on the ground than have a nuclear Iran.

ZachorMizrahi

The moment Iran is close to finishing it's own nuke Israel/America would've launch theirs into Iran and no one can do anything about it.

LmaoXD98

Bad idea for them more the more they try to acquire nukes the more they will get shutdown 

Iran having nukes would be horrible for the world so every country is gonna try to put a stop to it

hewasaraverboy

Why does Iran need a rivalry with Israel? It seems like a pointless pissing match that benefits nobody except for maybe corrupt leaders who thrive off chaos.

Kaleb_Bunt

They will be conventionally bombed if they try to pursue nukes. The US could bomb their facilities underground.

ReadLocke2ndTreatise

I agree in part but I would counter that it might be too late for them to do that right now. 

RevacholAndChill

Evidence suggests the USA did not falsely accuse iraq of WMDs.

paxilforsale

Iran itself would prefer not to have nuclear weapons. We know this from the negotiations a week ago, and even diplomatic offers this week. What they actually want is all the pieces necessary to build a bomb, without the problems it would bring. 

With enrichment capabilities and ballistic missiles they are only a month away from a nuclear deterrent.

The problems they hope to avoid are 1. KSA also getting nuclear weapons and 2. The same economic problems as North Korea. 

Iran's economy is already severely retarded and Iranians are suffering. Destroying other countries (like Israel) by proxy is much cheaper than nuking them. Iran are already the world leaders in proxy militias.

SnooOranges4560

Discussions are intensifying regarding military strategies, including using advanced bombs to target Iran's fortified nuclear facilities.

US and Israel's Military Options Against Iran's Nuclear Program

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want