Public sentiment on US-Iran relations is overwhelmingly negative, with deep-seated frustrations aimed at U.S. foreign policy, historical interventions, and the potential for military action against Iran. Commenters emphasize a strong desire for diplomacy over conflict, with widespread skepticism about the motivations behind U.S. actions and criticism of perceived warmongering. Many express a mix of nostalgia for Iran's more stable historical governance under the Shah and concern for the humanitarian impact of war, illustrating a complex emotional landscape dominated by fears of escalating violence and a desire for peace.

United States

Iran

United Kingdom

Russia

Israel

I don't think it'll mean anything. The President is titular. All important decisions have to be okayed by the Ayatollah.

DamnBored1

Not much.  The Supreme Leader controls foreign policy and the Revolutionary Guards report directly to him.  It is their activities in the wider Middle East which continues to sour relations with the West.

Few-Hair-5382

This election is unlikely to change the relationship in any meaningful way. Pezeshkian won’t be able to make any major decisions without the Ayatollah's approval, particularly in foreign affairs, and he’s shown little enthusiasm for reviving the nuclear deal. The US has also indicated their unwillingness to restart negotiations despite the election results, according to early statements from the State Department. Most Iranian officials believe Trump will become president again, further dampening the possibility of any cooperation in the meantime.

pieceofwheat

I think he said he would be more open to start communications with the West, and he is a “reformist” but also a loyalist. So I assume opening communications does not mean they intend to make any concessions, or act in any way that benefits the west. I think he’s just to look less extreme than the Supreme Leader yo ease the tension in their public. Small stuff like the police murdering less women over head scarves and such, well still keeping the general status quo.

The big thing is the president who just died was being groomed to be the next Supreme Leader. This new guy is not going to be the next Supreme Leader. He is a care taker president (they all sorta are there). So they will need a new future plan to maintain strict rule.

karlnite

The election is theatre to give the illusion of democracy, why do you think the turnout was so low?

SirShaunIV

I bet there’s a lot of bot activity on this.

Iran’s Supreme Leader should have one foot in the grave.  Yes, the Iranian presidential election matters.

Boys here went from claiming it was rigged and predetermined by the Iranian Supreme leader, to claiming that it now doesn’t matter.  

Russia wanted to use the Middle East as a distraction to overwhelm the interventionist state.  If Iran is trending towards moderation, that means Putin’s angle at overwhelming the west’s attention via encouraging Iran is weakening.

After a bunch of high level meetings between Russia and Iran, Iran then (FROM IRANIAN TERRITORY) launched a ton of missiles and drones at Israel.  Iran’s first direct attack on Israel in… I don’t know.  They usually use proxies.  Whatever.  The kicker is that Iran’s massive missile salvo at Israel was ENTIRELY INTERCEPTED.  This was in April 2024.

So Iran TRIED to directly attack Israeli, after encouragement from Russia, and Iran got a gut-punch of humiliation, as everyone of their missiles was intercepted.  That’s an embarrassment for Iran, and a real reality check.  Because Israel shot back, and destroyed a bunch of Iranian radar stations, in a retaliatory “warning”.  IE:  Israel said with actions:  “in able actual war we would blind you (destroy your radar) and then just keep shooting missiles, after we intercept yours.”

Now Iran just elected a moderate president, who wants to build bridges with the west and renegotiate the nuclear deal.  **This is a massive about face.**

There is *potential* here.  That potential could be harnessed, and we could deescalate tensions.  Their is a strange, deadly dance here; foreign relations between nations with a history of bad blood.

TiredOfDebates

OdetteCouture

Lanracie

It wasn't anything that Iran did that scuttled the previous deal, and the fundamentals of the US parliament+Trump hating Iran haven't gone anywhere. Iran would have to be somehow more accomodating than it was the last time, for uncertain gain - it's just not gonna work. More important to this question would be not anything the Iranian leadership does, but how strong AIPAC's grasp on American politics remains. It's been slipping a bit, sure, but it's still ironclad.

Yaver_Mbizi

Zip.  Nada.  The Ayatollah is all.  You can gauge local sentiment with such such elections, but they are irrelevant as they couldn't possibly resist the Ayatollah (unless they want to be imprisoned or die).

-animal-logic-

[deleted]

/u/Ok-Warning-7494 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.

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

TLDR; Israel did strike Iran to remove the nuclear threat, but that doesn't exclude that it wants the US to actively help it.  
  
You are correct that Iran's strategy for decades has been to "flirt" with a nuclear bomb as leverage. However, Israeli intelligence over the past month has obtained evidence that they're breaking out of that pattern and taking active steps that they hadn't before towards constructing a nuclear device in a short amount of time. Whether you believe them or not is up to you, you have no way to corroborate or deny, but consider that thousands of people had to work for months to obtain this information and it's very hard to keep a blatant lie secret at that scale.

However, you are wrong that Israel cannot significantly damage the Iranian nuclear program. They have taken out a crucial plant to process uranium gas into metal, which already takes the Iranians months if not years away from constructing a bomb. While they cannot easily take out the underground facilities at Fordow easily with a few MOP bombs, they can batter it with smaller bunker busters for weeks until it's destroyed. 

Everyone focuses on the idea that Israel is using the US in its plans, but nobody is discussing the very real possibility that Trump and the US are using Israel as leverage in its negotiations. A nuclear Iran is a threat to the US and something that all presidents have promised to prevent. The ideal outcome from Trump's POV is a negotiated settlement where Iran hands away all its highly enriched uranium, Fordow is blown up, and the ability to enrich uranium is taken away. Normally the US would have had to apply the military option itself, in this timeline Israel is and Israeli civilians are paying the price.

The-_Captain

&gt;It is clear that Iran does not want a conflict with the United States.

Not until they have nukes, at least.  

You keep talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran like it is a rational actor, when it isn't.  This is a cult of Islam that believes that the Mahdi will not come back until the blood of the last Jew has been spilled.  The Ayatollah has "foreseen" Israel's destruction in 2040, and they erected a Countdown Clock in Tehran.  Are you one of those people who thinks it's cute when they shout, "Death to America"?  

If destroying Fordow pushes back Iran's nuclear timeline by five years (more likely by twenty, you've overestimated the number of nuclear storage facilities Iran has that Israel doesn't know about), then let us push back Iran's nuclear timeline by that amount of time.  Buying time makes a difference; Stuxnet bought time, and it made a difference.  This attack has been about destroying Iran's ability to go nuclear.  By any amount of time, that is justified.

It's also very expensive to have a nuclear program, especially if your facilities, equipment and supplies keep getting destroyed.  The alternate strategy is to bankrupt Iran, which already is economically weak.

XhazakXhazak

I think it can be both. Israel absolutely wants the US to be involved militarily in a war against Iran.

That said, it quite clearly has demonstrated the ability to meaningfully degrade Iran's capabilities. It has systematically killed its highest-ranking leadership, nuclear scientists (which frankly, I find pretty wild to treat as valid military targets), and military installations.

To say that the above actions would not have any deterring effect on Iran's ability to develop a bomb is probably inaccurate. It may not be a death blow but it certainly pushes the clock back.

I think Netanyahu went into it thinking:

1. If the US gets drawn in, excellent
2. If not we still get to wreak havoc and distract from my own legal troubles. In which case, still excellent.

Bodoblock

This is provably wrong by logic. If as you say Israel's only goal was to draw the US into the fight, why then would they not suffer more damage, more quickly? Plainly THAT is the SINGLE new motive brought by the war. Anything else -- such as Israel's ability or inability to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure was known known before the war. As it is, the case for US involvement is pretty weak, and more importantly, predictably weak, thereby completely undermining your thesis.

Tripwir62

&gt;(“stop fucking with us; we can build a nuke pretty quickly”)

It's astounding that anyone can look at the situation and think that Iran has always just been playing defence against malevolent Israel.

Iran's regime does not behave in a pragmatic matter. Israel has no territorial claims on Iran, and Israel enjoyed good relations with Iran before the nutjobs took over in the Islamic Revolution. Yet Iran has wasted billions funding proxy groups on Israel's borders for no conceivable reason other than to put in place the elements Iran thinks are needed to help it fulfill its purely ideological need to annihilate Israel.

Israel says that its intelligence indicated that Iran was getting to close to being able to build a bomb. Given that Iran's regime is incredibly deeply infiltrated by Mossad, why can't that be true? 

Consider, if you can bear to, Israel's perspective. No country would tolerate an incredibly hostile neighbor from developing nuclear capabilities if it can do something about it. Sure, there used to be an agreement, but Israel has far, far more to lose than any other country if Iran gets the bomb. Enrichment is the hard part. There is no peaceful purpose for Iran to enrich to the extent that it has. Iran goes to great lengths to kill my people, and vows to do more. Does it really take a genius to connect these dots?

You're getting uncomfortably close to "Jews are the ones starting the wars" by trying to ascribe underhanded, "scheme-y" motives to Israel. Yes, Israel started this military escalation, but it is the end results of decades of hostility, plus a new urgency according to Mossad's recent findings. And they had to have understood they were probably going to do it alone. Trump is notoriously fickle and unpredictable and the Americans, even Republicans, in general have little appetite for war in the ME.

The recent events make the most sense when you interpret them at face value.

yallakoala

I think you are missing a couple things here:

For starters, a *rather lot* of the delays to the Iranian nuclear program have been the direct result of both Israeli espionage (Stuxnet a prime example) and international sanctions  / non-proliferation focus.

It’s not that Israelis were crying wolf - the actions of the world *did* slow them down.

Furthermore, you’re kind of neglecting the fact that Iran is actively waging proxy wars via Hezbollah &amp; Hamas against Israel - its funding and arming the entities.

For Israel, this is like big time existential threat. You have a nation basically funding terrorist - committing the worst attacks since Sept 11 - while also pretty clearly moving toward a nuke and saying it wants to annihilate Jews.

There isn’t 4d chess. They have simply come to the basic calculation that fighting terrorists with a clock to nukes is not a long term solution and ultimately the root issue has to be solved.

What Iran wants is to project power in the Middle East - and its enemies are western aligned Israel and Saudi. It think it can fragment the region and alliances though proxy wars.

No, it doesn’t want direct war with the U.S. - but it is banking on the U.S. (and rest of world) not calling it on its BS by low level regional aggression. 

Saudi doesn’t want a full scale war, Europe wants its oil and not to piss off its sizable Muslim minority, China and Russia don’t want the region being overly western aligned. All of that is a recipe for nothing ever getting resolved.

For Israel, it’s a vote of non-confidence in international institutions (particularly the EU and UN) which have demonstrably failed on all dimensions here. 

Especially after watching the world care so much with Palestinian terrorists are struck but not at all when Yemeni are. The bias is bonkers and accountability zero, so why should they care?

I think the timing here was forced by the potential of an incoming half-asses treaty by a world looking for short term end to immediate Sabre rattling rather than true fixes / accountability.

Would Israel like the U.S. to be involved? Sure, it could use bunker buster bombs to really clear out some of this. But I think Israel’s perspective is a simple must act to sufficiently delay their nuclear program *and* to disrupt their top military brass and financial funding of the proxy wars on the border.

Kman17

US is already involved providing rearmament and C2 to the Israelis.


 Facts are the rest of the middle east is tired of the Iranian regime standing in the way of a greater peace for the region. Their are multiple sects of Islam in the middle east and much of the middle east is of the oppositional sect Sunni Islam , they are glad to see Iran knocked down a peg as it is the only true shia power, once Iran is taken out a pan Arabian league can be formed with Saudi-Arbia, Turkey, and even Israel forming prominent membership. Truly Iran is the primary issue in the region for greater peace, they are set on elimination of the Jewish state.
If the other countries had an issue they would have collapsed on top of israel like a ton of bricks

Blairians

The nuclear threat is the justification, but Israel’s attack is to confront the constant threat they face from Iran and its proxies. Iran funds, trains, supplies, and strategizes with Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, (previously Syria), and Iraqi Shia militias to attack Israel. Those proxies are all tremendously weakened now, which provides Israel with a unique opportunity to confront Iran. Hezbollah in particular was a major threat to Israel considering their close proximity, organized military ranks, and vast arsenal of rockets. Degrading Iran’s military capabilities now offers the chance to stymie the ability of these proxies to re-arm. Israel is seizing the opportunity to completely reshape the next generation of geopolitics in the Middle East with or without the US directly joining in.

AldoTheApache45

&gt;It is clear that Iran does not want a conflict with the United States

This isn't clear at all.

Trump literally told Iran's leader to unconditionally surrender. If Iran doesn't want a conflict with the United States, how come its leader hasn't surrendered yet?

Adorable_Ad_3478

You “don’t believe Iran actively developing nuclear weapon”?

So everything they say and all the UN reports and all the watchdog reports and again - what they say. All of that not enough for you?

Is it really about the facts or intentional blindness?

Edit: typo

ShakedBerenson

I think anyone that lives in the region would disagree. Iran has been trying to take over the area via proxies since Sadam fell. Asad would still be in power had Israel not taken out Hezbollah. Taking out Hezbollah also freed southern Lebanon.

Apprehensive_Fill_35

I disagree that Israel's efforts are reliant or based on pressuring the US to engage from an offensive perspective.

Iran for 20 years has had all of one active nuclear power plant . . . think about that . . . and all along all their efforts have been about nuclear energy . . . 

There is zero need or use to have enriched uranium to 60% for a nuclear power plant - that only makes sense from a military potential perspective.  Maybe they can use it as is for a dirty bomb - heck, they could even pass along such a dirty bomb to their alliance of resistance partners (ie. the Muslim Terrorists of the World)

Does anybody in this world want or will feel comfortable with Iran having a nuclear weapon?

If Iran were to achieve a nuclear weapon - there is no going back!  They attain a level of freedom (by nuclear deterrence and threat) - even from sanctions and other pain that can be applied.

If it requires the USA to use our stealth bombers and POV bombs over 1-2 days of bombing to assure Iran's nuclear capabilities are completely destroyed - I am all for that.  This is not at all the same thing as an invasion.  The risk is simply whether their alliance of resistance (aka, partner terrorist groups) will try to attack US bases in the Middle East?  But they've been doing that on and off for years already.

Let Israel finish off all military sites, all weapons-capable making sites, etc. . . in Iran.  They don't need the USA to do that for them.  I don't even think Israel will ever even need to put boots on the ground (the only exception to that would be the USA not dropping the POVs and forcing Israel to destroy Fordow from the ground versus the air).

The only time of 100% confirmation of Iran's nuclear weapon completion will be after Iran has a nuclear weapon - once that happens, its too late and nothing can be done.

generallydisagree

Unlike iraq, pretty much every nuclear monitoring and anti-proliferation international organization agrees iran is at least seeking what would be the capability to make enriched uranium that could be used in a bomb and many are saying that they have recently violated previous oversight agreements they made.

Their gambit against Israel 2 years ago backfired horribly and they've lost most of the military proxy forces they had following the iran-iraq war to prevent conflict from reaching them directly, and basically diplomatic normalization or even alliance between Saudi and Israel would render them completely toothless in the region without a bomb.  (A big reason for conflict in the middle east is its basically a 3 way mexican standoff between co-equal powers)

Countries can have civilian nuclear facilities without domestic enrichment capabilities. (Japan, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, South Korea, Spain, and Finland)   They simply buy the facilities and fuel from countries that do.  Especially in troubled regions of the world, this is a common tactic for organizations tasked with preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. (And god willing, someday removing them completely from the world)

Potential_Wish4943

The Israelis and their allies have been claiming that Iran was several years, months or whatever away from having the bomb. But what you're forgetting is that for all those years Israel and the US have been actively hampering their development. Constant assassination , hacking did buy the Israelis time. The reason Israel attached is not because Iran had it already, but because if they would have developed it, the Iranians would then be able to terrorize Israel via it's proxies (Hezbollah, Houthis , Hamas and other parties notably in Iraq) willy nilly without any sort of repercussions. Israel famously destroyed Iraqs nuclear program (huge relief other wise it would have fallen into ISIS's hands) and they also destroyed Syrian nuclear sites (also huge relief). As far as I can tell, it's Israelis who are dying , not American soldiers. I doubt boots on the ground is what Israel wants. Your hypothesis is flawed because it discounts the true intentions of Iran. 

DaleRod2468

Here are other alternatives to consider why Israel attacked Iran


1. Israel claims Iran was behind October 7th.


2. Israel considers Hezbollah as Iranian militia and was attacked by Hezbollah since October 8th until recently.


3. Israel considers the Houtheis as Iranian militia and were attack by the Houthies at least once a week prior to this attack. Sending Israelies to shelter every single time


4. Israel is at huge risk of Iran getting nukes, as you can see, Iranian missiles can hit Israel.


Not everything revolves around the US. Israel can not take all of this and just stay there and wait to be eliminated. Israel would attack eventually even if Iran did not have nukes at all.

FreddieMoners

Trying to draw the US into a war would rely on trying to convince Trump to do a thing and rely on him to follow through.  I cannot imagine any coherent plan that would rely on Trump performing a specific action.

armchair_hunter

I struggle a bit with the confidence you say all this. There might be very very few people on the world that really know what the SoA of their weapon program is. And probably no one else than the Israelis know what options they have against Iran. 

About the nuke program: The IAEA said that Iran brazenly broke their duties from the contract. macron said that France has also info that Iran pursues and is very close to the bomb. At the same time, others disagree on this. Which might mean that their is a lot of espionage and counter spy activities going on. In the end, it’s one of the most important geopolitical questions to solve. 

If it comes to Israel, they prepared ~10 years for this operation. It’s very hard for me to believe that the agencies that came up with the beeper operation cannot come up with a solution to this problem. It’s also steep to believe that Bibi would authorize an operation that can only succeed if the regime flips or US joins, means if he gets help from the outside. You set yourself up for a major failure. 

Unless you have some top secret info that the rest of us don’t have, most of your assumptions are mostly not supported with data; while I think that your argument is logical, it’s simply not rooted in reliable facts. And I think that’s not only for you a struggle, I think currently most security and military experts as well as journalists and people face the same pickle.

Mcwedlav

Your assertions about Iran's nuclear program (or the supposed absence of one such) are wrong.

Read the story about [Stuxnet](https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-real-story-of-stuxnet), a computer worm developed by the Mossad (with assistance from NSA) to destroy an Iranian nuclear weapon facility 15 years ago.

VikingFjorden

I think you're thinking in the right lines but haven't quite hit the mark. A few more relevant facts:

1. The attacks happened 2 days before negotiations that were likely to lead to a new nuclear deal.

2. Some of the first few attacks specifically targeted Iranian negotiators

3. Iran has been used as a boogeyman by Netanyahu for years already

4. Netanyahu is barely clinging onto power thanks to the "war" in Gaza. But this is getting less effective over time 

5. Western sentiment was turning against Isreal because of war crimes in Gaza.


So with these additional facts we can see that it's a "kill a flock of birds with one missile" move

Western governments and populations get distracted from the probable genocide in Gaza by a war with a country most don't get along with.

Negotiations that are likely to improve relations between Iran and the west get cancelled.

A deal that might have significantly reduced the threat Iran poses (at least in public perception) gets cancelled.

The Israeli people are shown a new large threat, and a change in government during such a crisis would be unthinkable.

Drawing the US into the conflict would probably be a nice bonus for Israel, but I doubt it was the primary objective. Trump is simply not reliable enough to count on that.

silfin

Everything you said is a maybe except two facts - 1: Iran is a dangerous, anti-US v terrorist state and 2/Iran is getting very close to a nuke

Israel isn't the one pulling the U.S. into Iran war. The Iranian regime desires to be the first terrorist state with nukes is

YnotBbrave

Iran has stated they want to remove Israel from the earth.  Israel can stand its ground and destroy Iran because if they don't it's a threat to Israeli existence.

Rare-Psychology-3527

&gt;Israel does not have the ability to inflict significant damage to Iran’s nuclear program

This is incorrect. Israel has destroyed all centrifuges in Natanz, one of Iran's main enrichment sites. It has attacked myriad other sites across Iran's widely dispersed nuclear program. It has eliminated 11(+) senior nuclear scientists. In total, this is absolutely significant damage to any nuclear program.

&gt;Even if they had the capability to destroy Fordow, the enriched uranium is almost certainly spread out across the country

They do have the capability to destroy Fordow, but none of the strategies for doing so are easy. They can pummel it with dozens (perhaps hundreds) of standard bunker busters, which could take days or perhaps even weeks, essentially drilling a hole into the mountain, or they can deploy a ground force. Both of these are likely low probability of success strategies, but we've seen crazier things work for Israel. 

Enriched uranium being spread across the country is speculation. Even if it were, given the massive intelligence penetration, it seems unlikely that these wouldn't already be tracked, or in consolidating them latter would not be detected. I don't think this is a particularly compelling argument. 

&gt;If Iran’s entire nuclear program including the uranium were destroyed, it could still develop a bomb in under 5 years.

Reconstruction of the nuclear program is possible, but the 5-year time horizon is speculative (it could be more, it could be less). It's worth noting that it in 1981 Israel destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor while it was being built. The expectation was that this would delay Saddam Hussein's nuclear program by 10 years but that it would ultimately be resumed. It never ended up being resumed. Either way, setting the program back to a place where it would require 5 years of development would provide ample opportunity for Israel to continue to interrupt it. 

&gt;So why would Israel attack Iran? 

Iran has been the leading sponsor of every terrorist group surrounding Israel in a "ring of fire" strategy.  Iran presented an ongoing military threat poised to potentially develop the world's most powerful weapon, and given that the military landscape has shifted such that Israel could attack without risk of military response from Hamas, Hezbollah, or Syria, and given that Trump is not inclined to stop them, and given that the IAEA reported the day before that Iran had violated their NPT obligations, the moment was opportune. 

&gt;hoping Iran would retaliate in a manner that forced the US to enter the conflict

This assumes that Israel was hoping for major retaliation. Aside from suicide being completely contrary to Israel's strategy, in the first hours of the attack Israel crippled Iran's ability to meaningfully respond by taking out ballistic missile stores, launchers, leadership of the air force and other military heads.  

&gt;My view can be changed by concrete evidence of Iran’s nuclear weaponization and/or an explanation of how Israel thinks this bombing campaign will prevent Iran from pursuing a nuke without US involvement.

Iran was enriching uranium to 60%. For civilian purposes, as they claimed, enrichment to 3% is what is required. 20% for medical research, and that's only needed in smaller amounts. The *only* reason to enrich to 60% is to allow for shortened window for enrichment to weapons grade (90%). There is no civilian purpose that requires 60% enrichment, let alone hundreds of kilograms of highly enriched uranium (enough for 9+ bombs, per IAEA) if not to facilitate a fast transition to weapons nuclearization. 

US involvement is being discussed because Israel is *winning* and because Israel/US/(the West)'s interest align in removing any possible nuclear threat from Iran. Trump waited on the sidelines for days before even discussing American involvement, the only need of which is for B2s to drop MOPs to more quickly take out Fordow, which is a (very) nice-to-have, not a need-to-have.

January_In_Japan

US should’ve attacked iran long ago. Their troops need experience in modern warfare for the future war China poses . Sooner or later US troops will be involved in a war with China. 

Also do you really think US would really allow an extremist government like Iran enrich uranium for peaceful and deterrent purposes to weapons grade  ? Arab states and turkey might be “supporting” Iran through statements right now . But crown prince has said multiple times if Iran gets a nuclear bomb so will they . Turkey will as well . US doesnt want a nuclear arms race in Middle East out of all places. Arab states don’t trust Iran as much as Israel . Don’t forget Iran armed Houthis against Saudi Arabia backed forces in a war the killed more than half a million .

What I do know is that Iran chants death to America and Israel even before Gaza and that they funded multiple “paramilitary” groups. Might not have been this month but US regardless of Israeli action would’ve attacked Iran sooner or later

Own-Bank5855

Even Ali Khamenei doesn't deny they're close to nuclear weapon and what they want to do with it 💀


Anywau, do you realize Israel attacked Iran's nuclear program for years? and Iran is under heavy sanctions. Ever heard of Stuxnet? 🙄


Also you don't go to a war you planned for 20 years without a plan and it's obv Israel has one. Also you aren't even aware what kind of weapons Israel has 

nnooaa_lev

Israel has done a work a favour when it bombed Syrian nuclear facilities and Iraqi nuclear facilities (thank goodness otherwise it would have fallen into the hands of ISIS). The reason Israel attached Iran is not because they had a weapon, but because if they did, then Iran would be free to terrorize Israel via it's proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis , other Iraqi shia aligned insurgencies)  without any sort of repercussion. Yes Israel has been saying Iran is close to developing a bomb, but you're forgetting that in all those years, Israel hindered it's development ( attach on scientist, sabotage, hacking ). all in all your view is flawed because you're discounting the true intentions of Iran's ambitions.

Partly agree.

I think Israel has created its dominance of the sky over Iran so that the US can fly in some B2 bombers and drop some bunker busters on underground nuclear facilities. Two or three sorties, max. 

Israel's primary aim is regime change. The current one has been nothing but a pain in Israel's (and Saudi Arabia's) arse since 1979. Funding and/or helping Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, Assad, etc.

It truly is time for that horrible band of Ayatollahs to fuck off.

Israel does not need the US' help to force regime change.

ryant71

They seem to be doing just fine with their airstrikes. Does Israel just want the US to hit the nuclear sites with bunker busters or a full on invasion because I don't see the latter going over well in the states.

1470Asylum

It is likely both. The IAEA report from 2023 had iran possessing about 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. The only reason you have that is to enrich it higher for weapons.

Also I don't see the comparisons with Iraq. Iran does have a program, I'm not sure I'd agree it actually is stopped and they are relatively close. Iran also didn't really have much of a choice after trump ended the nuclear deal for no real reason (it was working and Iran was complying with terms)

CarsTrutherGuy

Irans supreme leader is going away. There is nothing you can do to stop it or the president. Pointless conversation, you lose!

One-Childhood-2146

Netanjahu has been claiming that Iran is very close to producing viable NUKES since 1992...Back then at the Knesset he said that Iran would need five years at the most, and ever since then, he has been maintaining that it could be a matter of months, if not weeks until Iran will have their nuclear weapon. Netanjahu is a MONSTER, who doesn't give a SHIT about the poor hostages...The ONLY thing he cares about is NOT landing in jail. That, is the reason he keeps up his inhumane treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza. He has ALWAYS wanted to wage war against Iran, and doesn't care that he may be ushering in WW3...and now that he's stealing Trump's thunder, Trump is unfortunately probably silly enough (in spite of the fact that he campaigned on keeping the US out of any wars), to use his toy the bunker buster bomb on Fordo, even though his military advisers are warning him, that there are no guarantees, that the BBB will actually be able to destroy Fordo. Assuming they are successful, but the the nuclear materials have been moved to a different unknown underground site, or worse the BBB causes a nuclear meltdown in Fordo. If the NUKES have been moved, then Iran will probably detonate a nuclear weapon in a major city in the US or Europe. But are Russia, China and or N. Korea going to allow Iran's destruction...This is INSANITY on steroids!!!!

Temporary-Truth-8041

You are misrepresenting the “story”. Why would Israel want to draw the US into the war? Let’s say, it’s to pursue regime change. Why would Israel do that? Because the current regime creating a nuke. A moderate democratic regime may try or may not try to create a nuke, but the current regime creating a nuke is one of Israel’s greatest nightmares, and is one of the reasons for this war. So I’d say that drawing the US into the war would be a tool in preventing Iran from having a nuke, not the main goal.

Other than that, you don’t understand the current situation in Israel. Bibi is an extremely unpopular politician. He’s been starting wars in order to move his unpopular policies that he has to move in order to keep the government functioning. If he draws the US into the war it will certainly be a “win” for him, but I’m guessing that he cares more about stopping large protests and diverting the topic from his actual politics.

I obviously can’t know what Bibi’s thinking, but I hardly think it’s this.

XiaoDaoShi

I’ll take a slightly different approach. The attack was as much about saving Netanyahu’s hide as much as anything else. His entire game plan for the past decade has been to cling to power at whatever the cost because there are legal charges and possible jail time waiting on the other side of his premiership. 

He has been on life support ever since his government’s complete and utter failure in preventing the Oct 6th attacks. What does any “strongman” do when facing severe internal crisis? Try to unite against an outside enemy. It is a tale as old as time and clearly still an effective tactic. 

What hasn’t been heavily reported is literally a couple days before the attacks there was a vote to dissolve parliament and call elections, and he was far down in the polls. He survived, but several members of his coalition had defected, showing weakness and strain.

A couple days later: War!!! Can’t change horses midstream and all that. 

And as proof a no confidence vote was held this week and Netanyahu gained strength. 

So I don’t think he gives a flying fuck if the US joins or not. Goal number one is to save his own hide, and he has done that at least temporarily. 

999forever

“Stop fucking with us; we can build a nuke pretty quickly” is basically the whole public rationale behind Israel’s pre-emptive strikes. They want to make sure Iran cannot build a nuke quickly (or at all). If you seem to think that is indeed what Iran has been doing then Israel is justified in taking the actions they took given Iran’s other rhetoric on Israel.

That being said the US has been pretty clearly involved despite trying to deny it and they both likely have the primary goal of ending the Ayatollah, but the nuke aspect probably contributed to that desire. Basically I don’t think Israel is luring the US into this at all, they’ve been involved and have a mutual interest in the regime change.

whousesgmail

I mean it’s probably both. I think they are attacking Iran as they have a golden opportunity to get rid of one of their enemies. Hezbollah and Hamas are neutered, might as well go after the head of the snake while you can.

J-Dirte

I agree that stopping Iran having a nuclear weapon cannot be the only reason. From my limited perspective I think the timing of the attack is interesting as there has been open worries of them creating a weapon for as long as I can remember. And yet just a few months back the director of national intelligence in the US testified to congress that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. So why the sudden panic?


As far as I can see, and it is a super complicated and confusing situation, there are a few key players all of which seem to have quite extreme views. 


Firstly there is the current Israeli administration, let's be clear in the fact that they have been involved in more direct conflict than any Israeli administration for a long time. I am sure that they feel somewhat emboldened by the lack of international action against their more questionable recent milatary actions, things such as laying siege to Gaza, occupying parts of Syria and Lebanon. The Hamas attacks a couple of years ago were horrible on many levels, but in some senses I think this has been a convenient catalyst for the current government to be bolder militarily. There are clearly many important voices within Israel that hold the view that Israel is destined to control the area of Judea, and that it is a holy war. This line doesn't sell well internationally, but reasonings such as stopping Iran to get a nuke will always be harder to go against. To think that what politicians say publicly is mainly honest is incredibly naive, it is an act of managing and playing with public sentiment.


Secondly Iran also has a major role to play in the ills of the middle east. There has been a lot said of their proxies, and I think it is fair that they are listed as a state that supports terrorist organisations. They are playing a regional power game, and it is convenient for them to work alongside groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. The events of the last few years have not happened in a vacuum, and there has been consistant work to undermine the state of Israel. I am sure that on a public level there is more support for these actions because of the Israeli heavy handed approach, and this will lead to more young men being willing to risk their lives to harm the state of Israel. All of this is played on by Iran. The timing of the Hamas attacks over 18 months ago came at a point where Saudi Arabia and Israel were close to normalising their political relationship. This would help slowly diminish Iran's position in the region. So provoking a strong reaction from Israel worked well to isolate them from their regional neighbours.


Thirdly the USA. I feel there are three main points of interest when it comes to the middle east and Israel. Firstly the moral side, and this is true of most places worldwide. I think many people get emotional about this topic because of the holocaust. It is one of the most horrible atrocities in the history of human civilization. Personally speaking my grandmother lost her whole family in Auswitz, she was lucky to escape that fate and I am lucky to exist. The holocaust itself makes it hard for many people to think rationally on subjects relating to Israel, and many politicians play on this knowing that they will have more support for milatary action if they bring up this terrible story.


But beyond this there are other factors at play in the US. It is hard for us in Western Europe to understand the strength of the church over the pond, we live in a mainly secular society, but this is not the case in America. This is a major factor as to why we get so confused as to how you have chosen your president. The current Trump administration had a strong religious backing, and has strong links to the Evangelist movement, which certain important factions believe that we are living in end times and that Jesus Christ will be reborn (and thus they will be saved) if Judea is controlled by Israel. For them as well this is a holy war and thus there is this pressure on the government.


And finally there is money, which is lf course a major factor for all three countries and the region as a whole, but especially important to understand American motivation in the region. The middle East has a lot of material wealth, and it would be convenient if they had more influence in the region. This can be achieved by helping their allies, and it is a major factor in why they allow such bullish behaviour from Israel. Israel and the US most definitely share a common enemy in Iran, although their reasons are different. Iran has been a thorn in America's side regionally for a long time and if their influence becomes limited then it will of course benefit American companies' interests as well.


TLDR; It's complicated, lots going on, don't take anything at face value!

Successful-Yam7271

Trump knew everything about Israel’s plan before it happened. They were moving missiles to Israel before the first strikes and planes shortly thereafter. Everything about the sequence of play suggests that Israel and America are closely aligned on both strategy and tactics. The secostate was quick to say that Israel acted on their own but didn’t say anything about what America knew or said to Israel about the strikes. Iran appears fully correct when they say America could have stopped Israel from striking and did not do so.

If America joins this war, it won’t be getting dragged there by Israel.

SmokingPuffin

Hefty-Branch1772

I think it's likely that Israel attacking Iran was explicitly planned with the US. I doubt they'd do it without letting them know at the very least, and the US could have vetoed it in reality because Israel relies on them heavily for military aid and diplomatic support. 

I wouldn't be surprised if Israel was told to do it but that's the conspiratorial mindset in me that I try to suppress

ethical_arsonist

Iran has been firing missiles since October 7th. Israel was going to retaliate no matter what the US says.

josemontana17

Let's allow radical jihadists have a nuclear bomb. What could happen ? Nothing bad, of course 

Really,  op , what's the goal for Israel of risking all to "drag us into war"? Because Israel is very very bad ?

Bast-beast

**Dear readers,**  
The conflict between Iran, the U.S., and Israel is *not* simply about nuclear facilities. In fact, this narrative has been used for decades. If I’m not mistaken, Benjamin Netanyahu has been warning since around 1993 that Iran is only “six months” away from building a nuclear bomb — and yet, here we are, over 30 years later.

This war is about far more than just nuclear weapons. It’s deeply **ideological, religious, and geopolitical**. There’s no clear or achievable end goal for either side, which makes it even more dangerous.

Take Iran’s nuclear facilities, for example — especially **Fordow**. If you research it, you’ll find that it’s built deep inside a mountain, making it *extremely difficult, if not nearly impossible,* to destroy with airstrikes.

**So what would be the end of this war?**  
It depends. If the U.S. doesn’t get directly involved, Iran and Israel can't sustain a long war due to the lack of shared borders and the sheer logistical challenges. How long can you keep bombing Iran while Israelis live in shelters and metro stations?

But if the U.S. *does* get involved, the war becomes far more complex and dangerous — not just for the region, but globally. An American entry could trigger a major **energy crisis** worldwide. Iran might retaliate by attacking Gulf Arab countries and possibly closing the **Strait of Hormuz**, through which a significant portion of the world’s oil supply passes.

Also, it’s important to note that Iran is *not* an easy country to invade. Its **geography is extremely difficult**, and its people have a history of strong resistance. The U.S. can't just walk in and expect a repeat of Iraq. Iranians are unlikely to welcome American troops with flowers. It would be a long, costly, and brutal ground war — and I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump (if president at the time) faces massive protests and political backlash at home.

**In short:**  
This is not a war that either side can “win” easily. Iran has significant **geographical advantages**, and defeating it would require more than just bombs, money, and media narratives.

vahidmarali

Israel did not attack Iran not to drag the US into a war.

Here’s my opinion why:

…

1) Netanyahu wants to stay in power (much like Trump, Putin and a whole bunch of others) and is doing everything he can delay the inevitable.

2) Iran arms, supplies and funds Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. The **Islamic terrorist groups** who have been repeatedly attacking Israel.

…

- November 21, 2021 *”In an interview with the Al-Aqsa satellite network aired on November 20, Hamas chief Haniyeh said, “Iran supports the Palestinian resistance financially, politically and militarily and is a strong support for it.*” - https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/467280/Hamas-chief-thanks-Iran-for-its-support

- Mar 26, 2024 *”Hamas Leader Thanks Iran For Support During Tehran Visit”* - https://www.iranintl.com/en/202403268924

- *”Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has expressed gratitude to Iran's President-elect Masound Pezeshkian for pledging support for the resistance movement.”* [Khabar News](https://english.khabaronline.ir/news/197929/Nasrallah-thanks-Iran-s-president-elect-for-pledging-support)

- *”Iran steps up support for Houthis in Yemen's war”* [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/article/world/exclusive-iran-steps-up-support-for-houthis-in-yemens-war-sources-idUSKBN16S22S/)

…

Iran’s Mullahs have publicly stated they want to destroy Israel so many times you could Google it right this very second and find 100 different times they’ve said it over the years.

So Israel is obviously VERY WORRIED that Iran’s Mullahs would LOVE to slip one of their Islamic terrorist groups a dirty bomb and let some no-name  jihadist “martyr themselves” by driving a 5-ton truck with a dirty bomb inside into some “Zionist target.”

How far Iran’s enrichment programme only Iran knows. Cuz they are not being honest with the UN inspectors or anyone else.

The priority wasn’t “to get America involved..” there are plenty of other valid factors.

TVC_i5

The IAEA-report is pretty clear: They were actively advancing to nuclear weapons. Like in: Weeks, maybe days away from having enough fissile material. They were depleting semi enriched uranium in favor of highly enriched uranium. One has other purposes, the other has not. They also did implosion tests. Only purpose: Nukes. 

So they have the material, they have the technology, they have the delivery system (as shown, high capacity missiles), and they had the quantity to ensure penetration of Israel’s ballistic missile defense. 

And the IAEA is not an IDF institution. 

At this point it’s safe to say the strike served the exact purpose that was advertised. May there be additional anterior motives? Maybe. But the simple fact that irans nuclear Programm has been a problem for decades at this point doesn’t negate the fact that they were at a pivotal point in development. 

They clearly pushed the button and were advancing rapidly towards a finished product. 

The reason for the attack was sound. After the report released in may, the attack shouldn’t have been a suprise to anyone. 

No offense, but; Please read the report or its summary before making any speculations that are clearly based on lack of information.

StrohVogel

&gt;Israel has been claiming Iran has been close to a nuclear weapon for 30 years


Israel also sabotaged the nuclear program many times. Stuxnet is a known one, but you got tons of assasinations, selling explosive centrifugues, etc.


&gt;Since then, it looks like it’s strategy has been to use its nuclear capability for deterrence. (“stop fucking with us; we can build a nuke pretty quickly”)


Or more specifically- they have been enriching large amounta of uranium close to weapons' grade.


That would mean that a weaponization program, would only take a couple of weeks. 


&gt;Israel does not have the ability to inflict significant damage to Iran’s nuclear program


Which is why israel needs the us. The b2 bombers do have the capacity to destroy the underground facilities.


You mentioned fordow? A us bomber can destroy it. 


&gt;Iran has been weakened, but they clearly have the capability to inflict more damage on Israel than they have demonstrated


What are you basing that on? The number of missiles decreses every day, and more lauchers are destroyed each day.

Effective_Jury4363

There is a big difference between Iran and North Korea when it comes to Israel's concerns. Iran has threatened many many times, North Korea just wants nukes for the ego boost. Regardless of your views on Israel, it cannot be denied that it is some of the most important land historically and they have incredibly important and sacred sites belonging to 2 of the biggest religions worldwide, it would be a tragedy for those to be destroyed.

  
Even if their plan was to bring the US in, which I honestly don't know enough about their relationship to have an opinion, the idea would make sense if it means that israel can be protected. 

Based on Iran's history, they could easily have been developed recently. 

The issue with ongoing conflict is that you never know what is truth and what is a lie until it's written unbiasely in history books. For now, choose the belief that promotes the most peace while recognising all opinions.

Amys_Alias

I’d argue everything that’s happened since the rise of Hamas in 2007 has essentially been a lukewarm war between Israel and Iran. With international powers, regional powers, and paramilitary groups taking part at various stages. The U.S. Navy has just seen the most combat since WWII fighting the Houthis in the Red Sea. Hezbollah was created by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and Hamas received so much backing from Iran over the years. Also Trump ordered the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, which resulted in an Iranian drone strike against U.S. soldiers in Iraq. So really, both Israel and the U.S. have been fighting Iran indirectly through their proxies or directly in small engagements for years. Now Israel is taking the fight to them directly. So what I’m trying to tell OP is that it’s not as much a matter of drawing the U.S. into the war as much as it is will the U.S. escalate its role. Given the current rift in the Republican party right over this issue, anything could happen.

Funny-Attempt3260

Iran conducted implosion tests, they have enriched uranium to 60% and they have constructed a potential delivery system. The sworn goal of Iran is to destroy Israel. It's not at all an obvious lie. 

Israel can hurt Irans nuclear program without the US, it's just significantly riskier. Israel has demonstrated that it's capable of a long air campaign in Syria. While the facillities are underground, they are not unreachable. This would be easier with US help, but not impossible for Israel alone. Even the use of ground forces is possible in case the US decides to stay out of the conflict, but this is probably the last resort for Israel, because a significant ground invasion would strain logistical support.

With the conflict in Gaza hamas, huthies and hezbollah, Irans state sponsored terrorists groups, have lost a lot of their figurative teeth. So much so that they have not even been able to aid Iran at all in the current conflict. With them mostly out of the picture Iran has lost a significant part of their deterrence against Israel. Advancing the nuclear program in order to regain that power is a logical step.

Fabulous-Suspect-72

I think you have ascribed binary motives to a famously non-binary issue (Israel in general), and made points that while arguably true, are not particularly relevant. 

Israel has decided to lay some hurt on Iran. Their stated reasons are plausible enough that they can't be discounted out of hand, and frankly if Israel had instead simply stated "we don't like them, launch missiles", I don't think they would be getting any more push back then they are now. 

Israel leveraging alliances is simply part of that calculation. If Iran wants to complain in any meaningful way, it needs to cease its own war mongering and play nice. Live by the sword and die by the sword and all that.

No_Warning2173

The best evidence is that Israel has single handedly defeated Iran without any offensive help from the USA or any other nation. 

Simply, this isn't a goal of Israel because it doesn't further their cause.  

Does Israel worry about Iran obtaining a nuke? I'm sure they do given Iran's pursual of uranium enrichment to levels of 60%, drastically beyond any civilian use case. 

However, Israeli is justified in attacking Iran for other reasons, namely the finding of proxy terror groups all over the region to attack Israel, and thr constant threats from Iran regarding their intent to destroy Israel.

RCrdt

I think saying it’s a single thing is misleading. I’ve no doubt at all the intent is to draw the US into the war; they cannot complete their mission themselves and leaving it half done is a none starter.

I also suspect, more cynically, that this is a way to conflate the conflict in Gaza with the conflict in Iran. The west for the most part agrees with the crippling of irans regime and nuclear infrastructure and so Netanyahu will make this a sole conflict. The fact many western countries were criticising Israel’s activity in Gaza will now be angled to being pro Iran

Mav_Learns_CS

If going by logic of israel.they can attack any other country and no one should retaliate back .  So  Israel can also attack china or other euro nation by same logic.


The Europe forgot that Israel is not christian. They believe that they were the chosen one.and other human are subpar


If you read the web ,the Nethanyahu had been pressured to step down by his people.they only want  him up there is there is a war. This may be tactic for him to hold office. regardless of bloodshed. And history had proven that everytime Israel yell ,US will come running

Be-safe-otg

Intended to draw usa ? Its the usa who gave Israeli green light to shoot those missiles in the first place. Just stop and think about it would a weaker country in every aspect declare war to a bigger and stronger with 10x the amount of man power?? Nope I dont think so. They( Israeli )knew they had US to help them and they was just “following Orders”. Wake up people this is political and it is bound to happen(ww3).
I really wish peace for all the world but our world leaders are corrupted and us the common people will be suffering.

Underthesun696

If anybody really believes that Iran has nuclear weapons, keep in mind that no nuclear country has been under an active war. EVER.   
War between 2 nuclear armed countries is mutually assured destruction and people who have been 'fighting' with defenseless children for decades would have the guts to bomb a nuclear nation?  
Also, who are they to decide who has nuclear weapons or not? Don't they have a plethora of ILLEGAL nukes themselves?

Appropriate-River-57

Legitimate, non-compromised conservatives want nothing to do with the war Israel started with Iran. It's insanity. There was a plan to destroy the middle east on behalf of Israel before 9/11 even happened. The real enemy is not the left or the right, it's the Israeli lobby and intelligence apperatus that has been controlling US politics for many decades. The neo-conservatives were and are still all Israel first, not america first.

TemperedGlasses7

Y'all Israel defenders bringing up reasoning of nukes really love to ignore that other white dude from 2 decades ago who caused the murder of millions of innocent civilians due to "Iran DEFINITELY having nukes" which was unequivocally false. Also I think you fail to acknowledge the fact that the only nation in the entire middle east with nuclear weapons is Israel itself. I'm not going to put 2+2 together any further for you.

Old-Set6906

This attack is intended to do both, though it only prevents Iran from having a nuke now while basically guaranteeing that every Iranian government going forward will work towards getting nukes.  If we look at the geopolitical situation from Iran's perspective, it simply makes no sense to not have nukes, no matter what their governments ideological leanings are.

Brilliant_Trade_9162

I don’t think the nuke thing was true but that doesn’t mean they did it to get the US involved. It would be what they want but it would be a pretty rash thing to do when it’s not guaranteed. Besides they did hit a bunch of their military leadership, so it presumably had some kind of merit to them beyond entangling the US in another war.

Robin_Gr

 Israel’s Netanyahu is a narcissist and a psychopath. He recognizes the same in Donald Trump and knows how to manipulate it. I don’t know if little Donnie can resist the urge to play grown-up soldier. You would think it would hurt his bone spurs, but it probably won’t. It would possibly hurt his conscience if he had one.

Historical-Finish564

We are *not* going to war for fucking Israel. Nobody here is down with that idea, and any "seemingly huge group" online currently making like they are aren't really fucking from here.

And as far as a Draft goes, They won't be able to get anyone from the Left *or* the Right in this country to go, and they can't jail everybody.

RedditAdminsFuckOfff

They have said this before….i can’t remember the date and I don’t care to look it up. Something along the lines of, “if you don’t jump in, we’ll use nukes. And that’s bad for all of us.”

Not to say that’s what is happening now…but Israel can eat a bag of d’s if they think anyone is crying over this.

dicktits143

After 20 years of the IAEA certifying that Iran is compliant with the NPT, on June 12, 2025 they said it was not.

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iaea-board-declares-iran-breach-non-proliferation-duties-diplomats-say-2025-06-12/

Israel has reason to believe things changed recently and it’s independent of the US.

JohnLockeNJ

I think the problem with this idea is that "drawing US into war" implies the US didn't already want this war. Israel is fighting a proxy war for the US. A ton of missiles were diverted from Ukraine to Israel weeks before the attacks cause the US already knew of the operation and likely planned some or parts of it.

cowmix88

Iran has been funding and arming the same terrorist groups Israel has been at war with for years. Now that the war has picked up they want to cut it off at the source. Do they want US involvement yes but   the goal is still to stop Iranian arms and funding and they are capable of doing that alone.

annonimity2

I've always been of the belief that Israel doesn't need the US to do anything war wise.... they just want us to prevent other nations from doing something to stop them.

Sorta like a hey if we bomb these guys will you prevent the rest of the world from sactioning us? Cool cool

SpecialistKing1383

Like the Daily Show stated: 'Iran: weeks away from having nuclear weapons since 1995.'

Of course they are trying to get the US involved. It's extremely obvious. Secondly, Israël was facing mounting criticism on Gaza and they found a way to change the subject.

GeoHBB69

The issue is breakout capacity. Intelligence says Iran had enough enriched uranium to make 9 nuclear weapons. That means they withdraw from whatever inspectors or treaties and they have a functional nuke on a ballistic missile before the world can react.

takhsis

well what would you do if a country publicly announces that your country does not need to exist.

woulnt you draw your ally who is much ruled by the military industrial complex /debt economy ?

two birds in one stone, only that you are the other bird.

Friendly_UserXXX

The only reasons why Iran is having issues with developing nuclear weapons is because of both US occupation of Afghanistan, refuse allegience to saudi arabia, and because the Taliban views the only sites with uranium deposits as historically holy.

Unhappy-Night6230

[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

Violators will be fed to the bear.

---

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

AutoModerator

This situation, like damned near every middle eastern problem, is a result of policy after WWII. The people weren’t considered people and oil wealth drove folks to short-sighted goals. Iran was pretty damned stable until the Brits put in a puppet leader. The dude got overthrown by a bunch of Left leaning college folks and then got co-opted by the local religion. Since then allegiances have solidified, though I’ll say the world wouldn’t look very different if the US had sided with Iran over SA. Take any given situation and reverse Iran and SA and I don’t see cards falling differently. We either ignore them all or get drug down in the Middle East.

Alfred_The_Sartan

smile humorous future fertile shame roll offbeat jellyfish practice instinctive

 *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev/home)*

Thufir_My_Hawat

Great topic for discussion, very well phrased. I think the understanding it starting to dawn on many that the US is in a large part the creator of its own problems. 

The US has had a hostile relationship with Iran since the US supported Shah was disposed during the Iranian revolution (1979). And while the US is not always openly antagonistic to Iran, it has had a consistent focus on isolating and reducing Irans capabilities as a nation. Because Iran was a very capable, developed nation, rich in resources, not a nation you can just push around. 

In regards to your two points, JCPOA could only be accepted by a beaten down, isolated, weakened Iran. JCPOA itself is an agreement that violates Iran's rights under the NPT (non-proliferation Treaty of nuclear weapons) by limiting their access &amp; domestic development of nuclear energy technology. JCPOA rewards Iran's acceptance of reduced rights by drip feeding them illegally seized Iranian funds. Ironically Iran continued to maintain their obligations under the agreement (with the other signatories) after Trump pulled out, only deviating after repeated false accusations and military escalation from Israel. 

Infact we see many examples, the Podesta emails, JCPOA disputes, among others, where US antagonistic action towards Iran is at the behest of Israel. In aid to temper Israel's bloodlust. Israel threatens to strike Iran with sabotage or missiles, and the US makes a public statement on stronger action on Iran'. 

As for Soleimani although his death would be significant I feel the bigger ire would come from the hypocracy. While Iran's leadership is Theocratic and oppressive to the Iranian people, Soleimani was instrumental in Iraq &amp; Syria fighting **ISIS** the same terror group that is apparently a threat to world peace. For the US to assassinate one of the most effective commanders *fighting* terrorism under the guise of stopping terrorism I feel would be the bigger insult.

addicted_to_trash

As long as I'm not limited, it begins with Ayatollah Khomeni and the Islamists driving the Shah out. Iran was a reasonably free country , but the Ayatollah wanted absolute power...and he got it. And it has been downhill ever since. Iran is now a rotten state, and we are their stated enemy, so good relations is a lost cause.

wereallbozos

You aren't thinking far enough back. The Iranians are still pissed off about the [1953 overthrow of their government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat). We got rid of a lawfully elected government and replaced it with a dictator. 

An additional part of the problem is an ongoing conflict between Sunni and Shia (also called Shiites). These are 2 factions of Islam that revolve around "who speaks for Mohammed". The Saudi Arabian government is all Sunni and only considers Sunni to be "real" Islam. The majority of Iranians are Shiites. Every Islamic country that we've invaded or attempted to overthrow has been Shia or some other non-Sunni faction: Iran, Iraq, Syria. The people we're helping oppress in Yemen are Shiites. The civil war in Yemen kicked off in 2014 as Saudi backed Sunnis tried to gerrymander the districts of Yemen to ensure that Shiites (who governed one district) were redistricted into 2 Sunni-majority districts, guaranteeing that the Shiites would never have a voice in government again.  For an example, see North Eastern [Arizona's counties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_counties_in_Arizona), and how they slice up the [Navaho reservation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Nation) across 3 counties so that the Navahos have no voice in Arizona politics. Basically, America is being Saudi Arabia's attack dog, crushing everyone who is Saudi Arabia's enemy. Iran feels cornered and attempts to assist every Shiite group: *the enemy of my enemy is my ally (for now)*. 


From a [book review by me, on an older EverQuest forum](https://www.graffes.com/forums/showthread.php?38953-Book-Review-The-Persian-Puzzle) of the book [The Persian Puzzle](https://www.amazon.com/Persian-Puzzle-Conflict-Between-America/dp/0812973364):

&gt; *Background of the cheating:*        
&gt; *In 1901, D'Arcy managed to get a 60-year oil concession from Iran for a small payment and a promise of 16% of profits. Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, later British Petroleum) cooked the books so egregiously that in 1932, the concession was cancelled. A newer agreement in 1933 gave Teheran a more straightforward, less crooked, arrangement for revenues: a per-barrel royalty, not some arrangement based on accounting practices that remind any modern reader of Enron; and giving up land claims: if oil was under your land, APOC could seize it even if they never drilled, or if the wells pumping it were miles away. Yet APOC still decided to screw the Iranians every possible way they could.*   

&gt; *Shortchanging Iran to the tune of several billion dollars, and repeatedly defaulting on the promises made to Iranians by AIOC [1], the Iranian legislature voted to revoke the concession in 1950. Much of the events of 1949 to 1953 could be described as must hurt the British no matter what the cost. The British would answer along the lines of We English have had hundreds of years of experience on how to treat the Natives. Socialism is all right back home, but out here, you have to be the master.*   

&gt; *The Fall of Mossaddeq:*       
&gt; *The events of 1949-53 didn't happen in a vacuum. In the US, tensions were building that would become called the Korean War. Mossaddeq was a skilled speaker, but his skills were primarily focused on Iranian audiences. His techniques were perceived in the West as unstable melodramatics. Fearing that Mossaddeq might till Soviet-ward, the US overthrew him to reinstall the Shah.*   

&gt; *Nationalizing the oilfields:*       
&gt; *In January 1973, the Shah nationalized the oilfields, finishing what Mossadeq started 22 years earlier. Before the US could overthrow the Shah, the Yom Kippur war changed the political landscape.*   

&gt; *Carter's big mouth and the lead up to the Iranian Revolution:*   
&gt; *President Carter liked to push human rights. Yet he chose to praise the Shah when the Shah was cracking down on his people. Khomeini called the President a hypocrite who promoted human rights only when it was convenient for the US. Slanderous editorials in state run Iranian papers criticizing Khomeini led to riots. Troops killing protesters, including mullahs, pushed most of the population to support Khomeini (who was seen as an upright and pious man). This pushed Khomeini into the front light and focused the country's attention on him. Khomeini believed that the US (as well as Israel and the Soviet Union) were the cause of all evil in the world. The Iranian people were extremely anti-American by the early 1970s. The Shah was seen as a puppet of the US: hurting the Shah was hurting the US, deposing the Shah was gaining freedom from the US.*   

&gt; *The protests in '73 were similar to the protests in '63, but this time, instead of having large street demonstrations, Khomeini urged people to strike instead. The same general, who in '63 earned the title "butcher of Teheran," was placed in charge of suppressing the protests. As in 1963, martial law was declared. Several hundred people were killed in military crackdowns around Teheran. When Carter called the Shah to express his support, the Shah liked what he said so much, that a transcript was published in the state run papers. This led the public to believe that Carter approved of the massacre. This only enraged the population. For coverage of the revolution, and the hostage situations, I refer you to chapters 6 and 7 of the book. One should note that the planes carrying the hostages did not take off until the Reagan's oath of office was completed.*  

&gt; *Iran-Contra:*      
&gt; *Part of the Reagan campaign for the presidency revolved around slamming Carter for trying to negotiate with the Iranian "hostage takers." Yet the Reagan administration covertly sold proscribed weapons to those very same people. Folks like to believe that there were "moderates" in the Iranian government who could be dealt with. Some lesser known scandals, like BCCI[2] grew out of the influence of some of the middle-men in the arms-for-hostages negotiation. The American policies of publicly claiming one thing, while doing the opposite in secrecy lead the Iranians to do very frustrating things, most noticeably ignoring political posturing by the US.*   

&gt; *The Iran-Iraq war:*       
&gt; *Saddam was fooled by his yes-men into believing that the Iranians wanted to get rid of the mullahs, and that a popular uprising would happen when he invaded Iran. Instead, the Iranians rallied around their leaders.*   

&gt; *Memorable quote: The only way to understand the twenty five year confrontation between Iran and the United States is to know the history of the relationship. Contained in that history are all of the elements of our current impasse. Most Iranians know that history - or some warped version of it - all too well. Most Americans know it too little. To a certain extent, that is the first of many profound differences that lie at the heart of our belligerent stand-off.*   

&gt; *After the book was finished:*   
&gt; *President bush decided to interfere with the Iranian elections by broadcasting demands. Just like Osama bin Laden chose to interfere with the 2004 US elections by broadcasting demands. Voting for bush was seen as voting against bin Laden, just like voting for Ahmadinejad was seen as patriotic: it was voting against bush.*

&gt; *Notes*    
&gt; *1 - You can read more details starting at page 52 of the book.*   
&gt; *2 - The BCCI scandal was central to Iran-Contra as well as funding terrorists, laundering money (both terrorist and drug money) and the careers of both Presidents Bush. Several books have been written on the subject, almost all end the matter with President GHW Bush quashing all further prosecutions in the incidents.*

Tangurena

Iran and Russia have had aligned interests for decades. This isn’t a new relationship. 

And what does it even mean for the USA to be “responsible” for the fact that our interests are not aligned with Iran or Russia. That’s like saying some is “responsible” for an argument because they disagree with you. It’s tautological. There’s an argument because you disagree. 

unbotheredotter

Well our CIA helped to overthrow democratically elected President Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 to reinstall the Shah, so….

rubythedog920

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

ThreeCranes

Namely:

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

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

8andahalfby11

&gt;Israel's support

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

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




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

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

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


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




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

This is an assertion without support. And highly debatable.


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

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

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

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

And...

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

thelasian

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


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


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

SlaroTheMan

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

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

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

WirelessZombie

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

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

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

BelligerentBenny

I'd argue regional dominance IS Security for Israel.

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

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

Your source claimes

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

Actually Alawites can barely be considered Muslim

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

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

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

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

Sonny_Crockett123

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

cvg596

America's global alliance structure means that it inherits the geopolitical objectives of the states that it aligns itself with. European alignment means opposing Russia, Israeli-Arab alignment means opposing Iran etc. The thing that keeps the two countries at odds is that the relations that US enjoys with other ME powers is dependent on their opposition to Iran. Should America adopt a neutral or even friendly position wrt Iran? Then I'm sure Israeli-American and Saudi-American relations would deteriorate significantly from where they are currently.

50centspercomment

President Trump is expected to make a decision on potential US military action against Iran within two weeks, as ongoing talks continue.

US-Iran Relations

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want