Public opinion on the US-Iran nuclear tensions is predominantly negative, marked by deep skepticism towards the US government's motives and calls for peace. Many commenters express frustration over military involvement, highlight perceived double standards in international relations, particularly regarding Israel's nuclear arsenal, and demand a diplomatic approach over conflict. The overarching sentiment reveals concerns about the potential for escalation and a desire to avoid further wars.

United States

Iran

Israel

[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

I don't believe China will ever invade Taiwan unless something very majorly changes with regard to the status quo. Xi Jinping explicitly stated that "Chinese will not fight Chinese". Unllike Russia, which has a long history of invasions and annexations, China's last major military conflict was with... [Vietnam, in 1988, over the Spratley Islands...]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_South_Reef_skirmish)

&gt;Seventh, he reiterated a line from former President Jiang Zemin’s speech on Taiwan from January 1995: “Chinese will not fight Chinese.” On the other hand, Xi would not commit Beijing to abandoning the use of force and said it would “reserve the option to take any necessary measure.” This threat was directed, he said, “at the interference of external forces [code for the United States] and at an extremely small number of ‘Taiwan independence’ separatists and their separatist activities.” Chinese leaders would themselves interpret this vague formulation.

There is a non-zero chance that China invading Taiwan would destroy the Chinese Communist Party. Why would they risk that for a chance at maybe taking over an extremely defensible mountainous island of 20 million people who hate your guts and will destroy all of their semiconductor factories the moment you arrive just to spite you?

Yes, there is a large buildup of military capabilities and even naval blockades. Naturally, like any major power, they want to be unhindered by the wills of any other major power, and both internally and externally they are heavily invested in sending a strong message regarding their position on Taiwan - but, and maybe I'll eat my words, and you can all point at my comment in 2031 and laugh, I don't believe the calculus is such that a rational, self-interested CCP would ever take that risk.

Oxidopamine

[deleted]

Always. A new conflict between smaller countries ALWAYS has the potential to start a domino effect. Once a superpower gets involved it’s almost guaranteed other superpowers will be forced to engage. 

The world is over run by narcissistic men.  Living in peace under such bravado and the inability to compromise to overcome past wrongs is impossible.

greenbigman

If I were a head of state in the Middle East or Asia, I would be forced to treat the US as a wild card at the moment

With its current leadership, the ‘proportional response’ of the Bush and Obama years cannot be counted on

henryjonesjr83

One thing that bears mentioning is that the GBU-57 munition being proposed for a potential attack against the Fordo nuclear site is unlikely to cause irreparable damage in a single strike. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/19/trump-caution-on-iran-strike-linked-to-doubts-over-bunker-buster-bomb-officials-say?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

It does not appear that any proposed US involvement could be realistically curtailed after a single operation. 

I think it's also worth noting that Russia's media assets in the US (Carlson et al.) are some of the most outspoken voices calling for the US to withhold from getting directly involved in the conflict. To me, that appears to suggest that any US involvement would weaken Russia's, and potentially China's current positions.

All that said, if the US were to get directly involved, Iran's likely response would include attempting to stop shipping through the Straight of Hormuz, which would dramatically restrict the global oil supply and increase Russia's oil export revenue as costs soared. That would be a significant benefit to Russia as it continues its invasion of Ukraine. It's unclear how significantly a destabilized Iran would negatively impact Putin's war efforts.

I am under the impression that Xi Jinpeng has set a timeline to be prepared for a military invasion of Taiwan around 2027. https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2024/05/07/how-dc-became-obsessed-with-a-potential-2027-chinese-invasion-of-taiwan/

I do not believe that the US becoming embroiled in another war in the middle east would shift China's timeline forward. If the US is militarily impotent after that date, China would likely feel emboldened to pursue an invasion of Taiwan.

Herr_Tilke

If Trump allows the US to get pulled into a war started by Israel, Trump will NEVER take responsibility.

LolaSupreme19

Currently U.S. involvement would be in the form of tactical airstrikes. For the U.S. that is low commitment and low investment. Easy to justify sitting around a giant table discussing options. 

If in response Iran or a terrorist group like Hamas or Hezbollah attacked U.S. bases in Bahrain, Navy ships in the Persian Gulf, killed American contractors in Qatar, took U.S. hostages from the UAE, etc the U.S. would be drawn into a deeper conflict. 

How China and Russia (both Iranian allies) respond matter too. In the same way the U.S. provided weapons and intelligence to Ukraine to hurt Russia so too would Iran receive support to hurt the U.S..

8to24

It seems unlikely to me, for two reasons. First of all, the reaction to Israel's attack has been surprisingly (to me, anyway) muted. It appears that Iran is so hated and feared by the other neighboring states that Israel got a quiet green light not just from the US but them as well. Second, neither Russia nor China has any great interest in starting WW3, or even pushing back against a US invasion. They would probably prefer a long, grinding guerilla war that wears the US down, even if it ends in pyrrhic victory a la Iraq.

The_Awful-Truth

Russia, China, North Korea and Pakistan, will not let Americans set some military base so close of them (if USA plan to interfere). Not to mention, USA cannot go on such military campaign with their debt, and the allies (such as canada, Europe and UK) starting to divest their trade, since Trump tariff war them.   
Not to mention that there are already massive protest happening within the USA, engaging the military and the polices against US citizen.   
It would be suicidal for the US to go on such a global war.  
Israel is a liability for the US, draining tax payer money, not to mention Israel blowup potential deals with golf countries. It's time to let go.

TanukiDev

The U.S. should not bomb Iran. If the U.S. had a plan, that would be different. However, it was Israel that bombed to the surprise of America. If the U.S. invades, it needs a lot of planning, not a sudden attack forced by Israel. 

If the U.S. bombs Iran, it should be ready to send a million troops to occupy Iran. That, the U.S. is not ready for. Just bombing the mountain at Fordow is not enough.

At most, the U.S. should sell Israel some 30,000 lb. bunker buster bombs and have Israel modify their C-130's to carry the bunker buster. Israel knows how to jerry rig stuff to make it work.

RB9001A

Very possible. I will say it’s been very amusing watching how Republicans respond to this. It’s highlighted who the Russian plants are and who the AIPAC plants are in their party.

Ozymandias12

In the short term, most likely not. Iran does not have many allies - their Syrian friends no longer control Syria, Hamas already has its hands full, Russia is tied up in Ukraine, and China is more like an arms dealer of convenience than an ally

Meanwhile, the other large power in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, would like nothing better than for Iran to get dunked on. I would fully expect SA to get directly involved in this at some point.

Now you might ask if China might take advantage of this to make moves on Taiwan or the South China Sea, but that also does not seem likely. Europe is kinda sore at Israel regarding the Gaza conflict, and likely would not aid their goals in Iran. BUT, we have seen more European involvement in the Pacific lately, shoring up their SEA, Japanese, and Australian relationships to stand against China. Further, a key Russian ally and supplier being crippled could help to lower the temperatures in Ukraine, allowing Europeans to pay even more attention to the Pacific if need be.

In the long term, a destabilized Iran will probably also destabilize neighboring (also Shia-majority) Iraq, and could lead to the rise of new large, technologically-advanced terrorist cells

theyfellforthedecoy

Two weeks has always been Trump-shorthand for never. So this may be nothing more than sick and twisted global ploy for attention.

napalm_beach

I'm rather optimistic for now. Only Russia is there to help Iran militarily now. Russia, however, can't fight another war now.

China also wouldn't want to find itself in a war against the US.

bedrooms-ds

It is of course un-Constitutional for the President to unilaterally decide to bomb another country in a clear act of war. Going to war with another country is not the President's decision, it requires Congress to authorize military action against another country.

I'm not sure how Congress would go in this case, Iran poses no threat to the United States, has not attacked us, and has no real way to do so. 

Similar to our losses in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have no ability to occupy the country even if we could conquer it. Iran is twice the size of Texas and has 90 million people. Nation-building is a ridiculous goal.

billpalto

I'm not sure how the situation could get any worse in the Middle East so far as broadening the conflict goes.

Hamas is pretty much broken as a fighting force, Hezbollah wants no part of anything. Syria is too busy rebuilding itself, Iraq has little to contribute one way or another, while the rest of the Middle East most likely won't get involved. So not much will change if the US attacks Iran, I think. A lot of condemnation, but no military response.

Ukraine is what it is. Russia weakens with every successful Ukrainian strike, but not enough to quit, not yet. If the EU steps up support, the stalemate will continue.

China will continue to saber-rattle, but I don't really think they would try an invasion no matter what, the risks are too great in this era of sea and air drones. Their navy is still too young and inexperienced to be trusted to win the day.

The biggest problems would be in the US, where a simmering civil war is developing. The attacks upon California's economy are unrelenting, the immigrant communities that so many industries across the nation depend upon are being attacked illegally and unconstitutionally, Democrats are being arrested for being Democrats, veterans are at risk of being denied VA healthcare for their political views, corrupt judicial rulings are destroying trust and faith in the system. If Trump bombs Iran, it will have repercussions among his base, which could be the final disillusionment for many. Trump can't afford to risk losing the House and Senate in the midterms, so if his base starts turning against him, he's likely to try to suspend elections. Where we go from there is anyone's guess. The US is a powderkeg of anger, fear, resentment and distrust, just waiting for a trigger to explode into chaos and disarray.

Tliish

US invades Iran, Russia pushes in Ukraine maybe even moves against nato, Finland probably, china moves to Taiwan… it’s possible!

ScubaW00kie

USS Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group (CSG) is currently underway in the Arabian Sea. The USS Nimitz CSG is in the Indian Ocean and making good speed to join up with Vinson, and the [USS Harry S. Truman](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=f7661461505a9ca6&amp;cs=1&amp;q=USS+Harry+S.+Truman&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjs_63P2ICOAxX6mokEHXSlD_4QxccNegQIBRAB&amp;mstk=AUtExfC9zoCGPfdyTpQ14JJcGkmQCpgtxYWJhdbe-ZD2-WHw-aBoUDjJ0WLDOEgdgvZnjTVpPQT3ZlfD4kwiuB6aeXFPALlN8-Lh85bKC7zVts-OICaIdD07oVDsbQR75sg3V_ikQQy-SZHCYn92X1AHLCRwhTFVqPX0Vfc9VGJXcAEaOhXcHQCoRmOwhEeLscHSmGhW&amp;csui=3) CSG is in the Red Sea. This weekend is the go date, the deep state has spoken. TACO is being sidelined.

KappaBera

&gt; If the situation in Iran spirals into a larger conflict, it raises the question: could this instability open the door for China to make a move on Taiwan?

No for the same reason US assistance to Ukraine massively disincentives China from invading Taiwan.

China has three strategic choices with an invasion of Taiwan.

1. A preemptive surprise attack on US and Allied forces in the Western Pacific theater. This would massively increase the odds of success short-term, but guarantee that the US joins the war and has the necessary political will to see it through to the end. This is a massive risk, so they probably won't go for it.
2. A soft blockade of Taiwan, but no actual military force other than boarding of commercial vessels bound for Taiwan. A military invasion would follow months or years later after the blockade has attritted Taiwan's ability to resist. This would probably work quite well as long as the US doesn't get involved. If they do, this turns into a near guaranteed loss for the Chinese.
3. An outright military invasion of Taiwan. This again the Chinese probably win, but only if the US doesn't get involved.

The US showing that it will get involved to actively defend allied interests around the world sends a clear signal to the Chinese that that's exactly what we'd do for Taiwan as well.

There is some balance of not being completely overstretched, which is where obviously a ground invasion of Iran would be a bad idea. Showing off your shiny toys does given them data on how they work, but it also shows them that we're not a paper tiger and our tech does work. If I'm China right now, I'm terrified of how fast Israel's F-35 fleet was able to decapitate Iran's air defense network. Having US air assets loitering over Beijing is not something that's on their bucket list for the regime to survive in a long-term conflict.

kormer

Over time. 

Regardless of what we think of Iran's theological position, it is clear that they are capable of hitting Israel a few times every day. A land invasion of Iran is not going to succeed. This conflict is going to drag on.   

The biggest beneficiary of Israel's attack on Iran is Ukraine. Russia will eventually have to make a move to protect its weapon supplier.

Sure_Nefariousness56

China gave a statement yesterday, if America gets involved in Iran, they will have no choice but to do the same and back Iran.  So if trump does this, say goodbye!

Inside-Palpitation25

TACO

Trump Always Chickens Out

Are you waiting for the Tik Tok ban? The trade deals? Ukraine war to end? 

Putin said to not bomb Iran and therefore we are not bombing Iran

TACO remains the standard

RCA2CE

First of all, thank you OP for saying “it raises the question” and not erroneously saying “it begs the question.”

To answer your question: **no, attacking Iran would not trigger a larger global war.**

Iran has no real allies outside of their non-state proxies. All of their state “friends” are friends of convenience, not true allies. Iran is run by belligerents who intentionally cause instability throughout the region. No state will stick out their neck to help Iran. The most-likely “friend” would be Russia, but they’re waging a war of their own. It’s gone so poorly that they’ve needed to use North Korean meat shields to fill their ranks and armaments for their eroding stockpiles. Even if they wanted to, they’re not in a position to help Iran.

Also, most Iranians aren’t too thrilled with their regime - especially the young people. How many of them would volunteer to fight the regional military superpower *and* the world military superpower for a regime that doesn’t even have control of their skies above their capital?

As for China/Taiwan, I believe the PLA can only cross the Taiwan Strait safely during two windows per year. Otherwise, it’s not easily navigable and highly risky. Even if the USA got involved in the Iranian conflict and was “distracted,” China still needs to operate within the laws of physics. If it’s not physically possible to safely cross the strait, they’re not invading. Even still, it’s something they’re actively preparing for with their massive shipbuilding operation, so attacking now would definitionally be attacking prematurely. I’m sure they prefer to do things on their schedule, not Iran’s.

BettisBus

This subheading is typical American media going with the shallow narrative:

&gt;The president is hoping that threatening to join Israel’s strikes will lead Tehran to abandon its nuclear program

Factory-town

It already is kind of a big global war. Iran backs Hamas, which attacked Israel and triggered a new conflict in the Gaza Strip. While also selling drones to Russia, which are then used to terrorize Ukraine, who themselves are being supported by NATO. Iran is also sold military hardware by China, who want to forcefully annex Taiwan, who’s navy is almost on par with the US Navy, and who will certainly clash with the US the second they step foot on Taiwan.

Its why I’m wondering if limited US involvement in Iran, that degrades their military capabilities along with their enrichment program, would ironically go a long way in de-escalating the conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine.

DJ_HazyPond292

\&gt;Could U.S. involvement in Iran trigger a larger global war?

Yes, absolutely Pakistan already threatened a retaliatory nuclear strike if Iran is nuked.

VeryPogi

Iran is not amazing allies with china and russia is simply not in a position to open up a new front against another country considering how they are already at a wartime economy fighting ukraine. 

Fact is Israel could take on Iran by itself and only lacks the political and logistical ability to put boots on the ground. So basically outside of a couple of landing ships and a couple of defensive ships US involvement during a world war could be minimal and allow them to move the sixth fleet to the pacific against china (after bombing every single military asset of value in Iran) .

TLDR: Iran isnt even a speedbump. China attempting shit now means them and their allies come to the war with a improperly prepared military with allies who are half way exhausted against a superpower whose main issues are overconfidence and lack of ammunition (read: not enough for blow everything up 4x over) .

probable-degenerate

Yes obviously, Iran has long been considered a conflict that could spark a world war.

LeRoyRouge

Nobody wants a world war 3 so it won't likely happen. With that said, with the quantity of related proxy wars that will fall out from this, don't be surprised that in 30 years what we are experiencing even right now will be called world War 3. 

RexDraco

The odds of that would be very low. Simply put Iran doesn't have allies and no country on earth WANTS to start a war with the US especially on Iran's behalf. The closest to allies that Iran has are Middle Eastern proxies but even those have mostly been devastated.

A Chinese attack on Taiwan is also not likely at least for the next few years. They are in the midst of a military build up but they're still a long way from being able to carry it out effectively. Amphibious landings are insanely hard to pull off especially under heavy fire. China isn't going to attack Taiwan in three weeks if the US carries out a few air strikes in Iran. Russia is completely bogged down in Ukraine and has proven completely incapable/unwilling to help any of their allies. Assad is no longer in charge of Syria.

socialistrob

Short answer is no.  Long answer is no.  The best answer is that it may settle the region down for 30-50 years.  The fact is Iran is the root of a lot of the problems in the region.  Getting a change in leadership make it so the region is a lot more stable.  This is one area where I think it is not only the right decision for hard and soft power.  But also helps us in our budget because we won't have to spend so much fucking money on ships in the area anymore either.

Wermys

/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

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

&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

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

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

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

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

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

&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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

The thing about nukes, is fireing one is essentially a death sentence. Mutually assured destruction is the primary reason countries have them in the first place. You kill me and I'll kill you. Iran having nukes isnt ideal, but I dont think its the grave threat bibi makes it out to be. Iran shooting a nuke at them would have dire consequences. Israel hass nukes. we have a shit ton of nukes and do anything israel tells us to do. But if Iran gets backed into a corner and manages to make them in secret during a conflict with the US and israel, then they might be desperate enough to actually use them.If an oppressive regime is going to go down they have no reason not to send the best finishing punch they have. Not to mention this is shit timing for Israel and the US to be kicking the beehive, neither one of us is exactly on good terms with our allies at the moment. In the event of a nuclear fire storm, no one is going to want to get involved. Even with out nukes this is a stupid move. Iran 100% has way more advanced missiles then they let on or normally use, and a heavy stock pile of old missiles. I could see them overvwhelming the iron dome with old munitions allowing their real missiles to do some damage to Israel. Iran has already demonstrated they can hit targets in the dome. Israel got so cocky slaughtering non combatants that they forgot fighting a real war has negative consequences. They very easily could be putting their citizens in more danger than if Iran had a nuke with no reason to use it. Even the most unhinged nuclear powers know what's going to happen if they start nuclear war. Everybody loses.

moondingo13

While I do think Israel was hoping to draw the US into their wars, I don't think they were counting on it.

Antisemitism has been on the rise for a while, but up until Israel started committing war crimes left and right it wasn't socially acceptable to be antisemitic in America. If they were relying on the US, I don't think they'd have done things that drew so much hate from Americans.

It would also be very stupid for them to do things to ruin their reputation right before an election. Make no mistake, no matter who won I can guarantee Israel would still be getting their cut of American tax dollars, but Trump is definitely more supportive of Israel than Kamala was which definitely didn't help Trump. Don't get me wrong, I didn't think Kamala even had the slightest chance of winning the election anyways but I still wouldn't chance it if I was starting a war that relies on the outcome of a foreign election.

Maybe Israel was banking on the sympathy they got in the past, but I don't think they are unaware about how much that sympathy has been waning. I think it is much more likely they wanted to start a war with Iran and only gave an excuse so the US MIGHT do their dirty work for them.

BoxForeign8849

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

I disagree. 

Under a centrist Democrat or old school god-n-guns Republican, that might work, but Trump is unpredictable, gun shy about interventionism, and neither he nor Vance own any military contractors. (And he might have been compromised by Russia, who support Iran, but we can’t be sure of that.) 

It’s highly unlikely that Trump will send US forces to attack Iran. It would also interfere with his ability to slash taxes on billionaires. He can’t both start a multi-trillion dollar war AND a multi-trillion dollar tax cut without the GOP House and Senate rebelling. 

He will continue giving Israel weapons to help, but so would almost any other US president.

Boulange1234

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

Recent statements by President Donald Trump and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have reignited tensions regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities. Trump insists that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon 'within weeks.' This situation is compounded by military tensions between the US, Israel, and Iran.

US-Iran Nuclear Tensions

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want