Public sentiment is polarized surrounding the Iran-Israel conflict, with a significant number expressing skepticism towards media narratives, frustration over perceived double standards in international relations, and deep concerns about the potential for nuclear escalation. Support for Iran's right to defend itself is prevalent, alongside fears about civilian casualties and the ramifications of military interventions by major powers.

Iran

Israel

United States

/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

Uh oh! Daddy America put his foot down 😆
I wonder how Israelis feel, trying so desperately to project an image of strength and that they aren't like the "weak" Jews that suffered the Holocaust and true antisemitism, but the best they could do was accept the role of a rabid attack dog to a real nation that actually has strength and doesn't have to be propped up by someone else.

cantavorous

Lol more like they gotta wait for a few more propaganda articles to help justify the attack.

nadeaug91

[deleted]

They can't take out Iran's nuclear sites without US direct involvement, they could probably hit the sites with missiles that wouldn't destroy them, start an open war with Iran etc, but not actually stop the nuclear program.

Iran in turn has proved it can hit Israel if it wants to. If Israel wants Mossad HQ to be a smoking crater, I guess this is the way to keep going.

scientician

The very fact it got so close to happening means America must strike Israel now and prevent WWIII

Epyon214

Jorgwalther

Wait and watch they had always been successful in getting whatever they wanted US to do. They make have to push the envelope a little harder. Wait until Hegseth is replaced with someone more loyal to bibi

Low-Succotash-2473

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Decapitation for the Iranian military leadership

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

* Dismantle the Iranian nuclear program

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


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

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

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

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

brainpower4



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

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

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

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

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

You've got some weird perspectives on ME dynamics.

CocoSavege

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


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

AdvancedPangolin618

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

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

Mrs_Crii

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

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

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

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

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

NoWayBruh_

In other words, what you're saying is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

EduardoMaciel13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MiffedMouse

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

RichStatistician6601

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

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

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

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

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

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

DilbertPicklesIII

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

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

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

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

jinxedit48

The attacks are illegal. From US v. Nicaragua: 

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

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

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

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

FerdinandTheGiant

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

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

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

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

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

pleasepleasenoroach

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

Teasturbed

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

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

Alshee1

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

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

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

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

superdupergasat

I disagree that it makes strategic sense. Claiming Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthis have been eradicated is premature. There is no better recruitment for Hamas than Israel bombing your residence and hospitals while preventing aid from coming in. Unless Israel plans to go the full genocide route Hamas will rebuild, probably within 5-10 years. Same is true for the Houthis and Hezbollah. Liberating Syria is maybe 20% to Israel's credit. Turkey was the one to provide the necessary aid and had Russia not interfered the rebels would have overthrown Assad a decade ago. Even then, by annexing some of their land and bombing them, Israel made an enemy of a state that was originally orienting itself more westward.

Iran will recover. Israel can't invade Iran, and the regime probably won t collapse given that Israel bolstered support for the regime by attacking civilians. Even if the regime were to collapse I would be surprised if the next government in Iran wouldn't be just as hostile. In the meantime Israel severed any chance of diplomatically preventing Iran from obtaining nukes. What wasn't necessarily true a week ago but probably is guaranteed to happen now is that Iran will obtain nukes and have incentives to use them, lest Israel manages to shut fown their ability to do so.

You have to consider the consequences for Israel. It's international backing has never looked shakier and there is a real chance that in 15 to 20 years it will simply not have any backing. It has damaged its economy even if it doesn't look that way. The way it has done so, is by artificially lowering demand. IDF soldiers are not going to be spending much of their paychecks now but when this does end, they will be spending all their money simultaneously causing inflation. The military industrial complex has cannibalised the civilian sector by attracting efficient workers and resources to the point that once the war ends, the civilian sector will be smaller than it used to be. Israel can sustain the boost to the military sector by going into a massive deficit but they can only sustain this for a couple of years. High public debt is challenging for even the US but Israel doesn't print the world reserve currency. All in all this is a lot of damage to briefly bruise your geopolitical enemies who will emerge as greater threats 5 years down the line.

Lastly, there is Israel's opportunity cost. Israel was a year or so away from normalising relations with the Saudis and Egypt. They could have removed 2 out of the 3 big regional adversaries from their list and let Hamas and Hezbollah's unpopularity drag thrm to obscurity. They could have enjoyes the brief window in the week after Oct 7 to do a series of targeted strikes and removed the more extreme leaders and left their more cooperative leaders take charge. They could have generally just chilled for a decade or so and occasionally shot down the loose DIY rocket that Hezbollah threw at them every now and then. They would have fewer enemies and they coukd begin the process to diplomatically reduced Iran's influence.

rlyjustanyname

Your viewpoint is too evil. 

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

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

reflyer

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

human1023

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

Yes. Iran groups lost groups it supports. 

Hezbollah remains remains in Lebanon. 

Even Hamas remains within Gaza

Houthis still bankrupted Eilat and ships avoid Suez. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Asleep_Mail5616

It makes sense, but it wasn't unavoidable. If Trump hadn't unilaterally tore down the JCPOA in 2018, the ME would be a completely different place today.

papyjako87

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

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

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

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

Gohab2001

The head of the IAEA has warned of a potential nuclear disaster if Israel targets Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant amid escalating conflict. Current hostilities are exacerbated with casualties mounting on both sides.

Iran-Israel Conflict and Nuclear Threats

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want