Israel Strikes Iran

[GannonFan]

Diplomacy failed. It happens. Just like it happened when diplomacy failed to stop North Korea from getting the bomb during Clinton and Bush's tenures. Diplomacy failed when India and Pakistan got the bomb. We should always try diplomacy, and we should never stop trying diplomacy. But the reality is, sometimes armed conflict is necessary. What's good about this, is that this doesn't even need to rise to the level of a war. Israel, as the German chancellor said, is doing all the heavy lifting for the rest of the world. All that will be needed from us is dropping the big bombs in an airspace that Israel has already cleared for us. All we have to do is devastate the underground nuclear facilities. We don't need to engage enemy forces. We don't need to occupy a country. We don't need to overthrow a government. We just need to do our part.

For what it's worth, I see us doing this sometime this weekend. Even something as big as us flying a combat mission over Iran is something that can have less of a news impact on a Friday or Saturday night. I think Trump has been persuaded to act - to leave Iran in control of their nuclear facilities would be lunacy. Just because you hate Trump (and I don't like him in the least) doesn't mean that I can't see what's in America's interest and the interest of the world. Everyone agrees that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons - that's what we've been trying to accomplish via diplomacy for years, through multiple Presidents, without success. The opportunity, thanks to Israel, is upon us. To not act would be the mistake.

Give (or better sell) Israel the MOABs (and/or whatever other giant bombs they need to get to the deep underground nuke facilities) and let Israel drop them. It’s their fight.

Just like the US shouldn’t be involved in regime change. Sure it would be preferable if the Iranian Royal family was back in charge, but the US shouldn’t have anything directly to do with getting rid of the Ayatollahs. Can’t create a power vacuum with a civil war and cause millions more Muslim refugees to flood Western Europe. The Iranian people have to get rid of the Ayatollahs. It’s their fight.

I agree with not getting involved in regime change. Unless the Ayatollah straps himself to the door of one of those deeply buried nuclear facilities, I wouldn't advocate any action against him. For exactly the same reasons you call out, that's not our fight.

Where I disagree is that it is our fight, indeed the international communities fight, to stop Iran getting the bomb. All of this started with the IAEA declaring that Iran was in violation, significantly, of enriching material closer to a weapon. Israel didn't act until then. If diplomacy can result in those facilities being disassembled without a bomb, great. But Iran has been at this for a couple of decades and spanning 3 different Presidents at least. If they don't agree, then the bombs drop. If Israel is capable of dropping that bomb, I'm fine with giving them what they need to do that. If we have to do it (the bombs are controlled via satellite on their descent) then we do it. However we get to not having those facilities exist is fine by me.

[BDKJMU]

Give (or better sell) Israel the MOABs (and/or whatever other giant bombs they need to get to the deep underground nuke facilities) and let Israel drop them. It’s their fight.

Just like the US shouldn’t be involved in regime change. Sure it would be preferable if the Iranian Royal family was back in charge, but the US shouldn’t have anything directly to do with getting rid of the Ayatollahs. Can’t create a power vacuum with a civil war and cause millions more Muslim refugees to flood Western Europe. The Iranian people have to get rid of the Ayatollahs. It’s their fight.

I agree with not getting involved in regime change. Unless the Ayatollah straps himself to the door of one of those deeply buried nuclear facilities, I wouldn't advocate any action against him. For exactly the same reasons you call out, that's not our fight.

Where I disagree is that it is our fight, indeed the international communities fight, to stop Iran getting the bomb. All of this started with the IAEA declaring that Iran was in violation, significantly, of enriching material closer to a weapon. Israel didn't act until then. If diplomacy can result in those facilities being disassembled without a bomb, great. But Iran has been at this for a couple of decades and spanning 3 different Presidents at least. If they don't agree, then the bombs drop. If Israel is capable of dropping that bomb, I'm fine with giving them what they need to do that. If we have to do it (the bombs are controlled via satellite on their descent) then we do it. However we get to not having those facilities exist is fine by me.

MOAB is dropped by modified C130 E and Hs, so don’t see why Israelis couldn’t with some modifications, as they have C130 E & H.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_MOAB
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/103_Squadron_(Israel)

[kalm]

Diplomacy failed. It happens. Just like it happened when diplomacy failed to stop North Korea from getting the bomb during Clinton and Bush's tenures. Diplomacy failed when India and Pakistan got the bomb. We should always try diplomacy, and we should never stop trying diplomacy. But the reality is, sometimes armed conflict is necessary. What's good about this, is that this doesn't even need to rise to the level of a war. Israel, as the German chancellor said, is doing all the heavy lifting for the rest of the world. All that will be needed from us is dropping the big bombs in an airspace that Israel has already cleared for us. All we have to do is devastate the underground nuclear facilities. We don't need to engage enemy forces. We don't need to occupy a country. We don't need to overthrow a government. We just need to do our part.

For what it's worth, I see us doing this sometime this weekend. Even something as big as us flying a combat mission over Iran is something that can have less of a news impact on a Friday or Saturday night. I think Trump has been persuaded to act - to leave Iran in control of their nuclear facilities would be lunacy. Just because you hate Trump (and I don't like him in the least) doesn't mean that I can't see what's in America's interest and the interest of the world. Everyone agrees that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons - that's what we've been trying to accomplish via diplomacy for years, through multiple Presidents, without success. The opportunity, thanks to Israel, is upon us. To not act would be the mistake.

Give (or better sell) Israel the MOABs (and/or whatever other giant bombs they need to get to the deep underground nuke facilities) and let Israel drop them. It’s their fight.

Just like the US shouldn’t be involved in regime change. Sure it would be preferable if the Iranian Royal family was back in charge, but the US shouldn’t have anything directly to do with getting rid of the Ayatollahs. Can’t create a power vacuum with a civil war and cause millions more Muslim refugees to flood Western Europe. The Iranian people have to get rid of the Ayatollahs. It’s their fight.

Agree on the power vacuum. But I doubt most Iranians would want the Royal Family back in charge either. They too were autocratic. Renember, MI6 and the CIA removed Moussadegh from power who democratically elected and populist and put in the Shah to protect BP’s interests.

No good answers here.

[BDKJMU]

Give (or better sell) Israel the MOABs (and/or whatever other giant bombs they need to get to the deep underground nuke facilities) and let Israel drop them. It’s their fight.

Just like the US shouldn’t be involved in regime change. Sure it would be preferable if the Iranian Royal family was back in charge, but the US shouldn’t have anything directly to do with getting rid of the Ayatollahs. Can’t create a power vacuum with a civil war and cause millions more Muslim refugees to flood Western Europe. The Iranian people have to get rid of the Ayatollahs. It’s their fight.

Agree on the power vacuum. But I doubt most Iranians would want the Royal Family back in charge either. They too were autocratic. Renember, MI6 and the CIA removed Moussadegh from power who democratically elected and populist and put in the Shah to protect BP’s interests.

No good answers here.

I bet most Iranians if they could anonymously choose,
would pick the royal family over the Ayatollahs/Khamenei.

Pro US autocrat better than having the American hating Ayatollahs. The Iranian Revolution/overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty led Iran to:
-8 year war with Iraq
-being a state sponsor of terrorism
-Sharia law/women treated like chattel
-their economy going to shit.

Iran is floating on oil. They were on the verge of becoming an economic powerhouse in the ME before the revolution.

In 1977, the last “normal” year before the revolution—1978 saw the start of unrest and strikes that ultimately brought down the monarchy—Iran’s economy was 26 percent larger than Turkey’s; 65 percent higher than Korea’s, and nearly 5.5 times the size of Vietnam’s. In 2017, Turkey’s nominal GDP was 2.4 and Korea’s 7.2 times larger than Iran’s, while Vietnam is 70 percent of Iran’s and is being touted as an emerging Asian Tiger…

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/i ... evolution/

No sane person would argue that overall Iran wouldn’t be much better off with the Ayatollahs gone and replaced by the Royal Family. And spare me any claptrap anbout inequality under Pahlavi. Currently there is equality in Iran: Most of Iran is equally poor.

The problem would be how would you get from A (the Ayatollahs) to B (The Royal Family) without an Iranian Civil War. 1/4 of the Syrian population fled during their Civil war, and Iran is 4x as big. You flood Europe with a couple million more migrants like you did in 2015-2016 and you’ll see all the right wing parties you love taking power (AFD, National Front in France, etc).

Again, though, not the US’s fight.

[kalm]

Agree on the power vacuum. But I doubt most Iranians would want the Royal Family back in charge either. They too were autocratic. Renember, MI6 and the CIA removed Moussadegh from power who democratically elected and populist and put in the Shah to protect BP’s interests.

No good answers here.

I bet most Iranians if they could anonymously choose,
would pick the royal family over the Ayatollahs/Khamenei.

Pro US autocrat better than having the American hating Ayatollahs. The Iranian Revolution/overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty led Iran to:
-8 year war with Iraq
-being a state sponsor of terrorism
-Sharia law/women treated like chattel
-their economy going to shit.

Iran is floating on oil. They were on the verge of becoming an economic powerhouse in the ME before the revolution.

In 1977, the last “normal” year before the revolution—1978 saw the start of unrest and strikes that ultimately brought down the monarchy—Iran’s economy was 26 percent larger than Turkey’s; 65 percent higher than Korea’s, and nearly 5.5 times the size of Vietnam’s. In 2017, Turkey’s nominal GDP was 2.4 and Korea’s 7.2 times larger than Iran’s, while Vietnam is 70 percent of Iran’s and is being touted as an emerging Asian Tiger…

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/i ... evolution/

No sane person would argue that overall Iran wouldn’t be much better off with the Ayatollahs gone and replaced by the Royal Family. And spare me any claptrap anbout inequality under Pahlavi. Currently there is equality in Iran: Most of Iran is equally poor.

The problem would be how would you get from A (the Ayatollahs) to B (The Royal Family) without an Iranian Civil War. 1/4 of the Syrian population fled during their Civil war, and Iran is 4x as big. You flood Europe with a couple million more migrants like you did in 2015-2016 and you’ll see all the right wing parties you love taking power (AFD, National Front in France, etc).

Again, though, not the US’s fight.

Agree with the last sentence and I’m no fan of the Ayatollahs either. My point is that the revolution happened for a reason and the west contributed to that as well as the poverty. We are not always the good guy either and also contribute to problems on the global stage. Imagine if Moussadegh had remained in power and nationalized their oil like he was promising to do along with a host of other populist reforms….

[BDKJMU]

I bet most Iranians if they could anonymously choose,
would pick the royal family over the Ayatollahs/Khamenei.

Pro US autocrat better than having the American hating Ayatollahs. The Iranian Revolution/overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty led Iran to:
-8 year war with Iraq
-being a state sponsor of terrorism
-Sharia law/women treated like chattel
-their economy going to shit.

Iran is floating on oil. They were on the verge of becoming an economic powerhouse in the ME before the revolution.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/i ... evolution/

No sane person would argue that overall Iran wouldn’t be much better off with the Ayatollahs gone and replaced by the Royal Family. And spare me any claptrap anbout inequality under Pahlavi. Currently there is equality in Iran: Most of Iran is equally poor.

The problem would be how would you get from A (the Ayatollahs) to B (The Royal Family) without an Iranian Civil War. 1/4 of the Syrian population fled during their Civil war, and Iran is 4x as big. You flood Europe with a couple million more migrants like you did in 2015-2016 and you’ll see all the right wing parties you love taking power (AFD, National Front in France, etc).

Again, though, not the US’s fight.

Agree with the last sentence and I’m no fan of the Ayatollahs either. My point is that the revolution happened for a reason and the west contributed to that as well as the poverty. We are not always the good guy either and also contribute to problems on the global stage. Imagine if Moussadegh had remained in power and nationalized their oil like he was promising to do along with a host of other populist reforms….

He did nationalize their oil in 1951, and it led to a major decline in Iranian oil production & exports. Nationalizing oil doesn’t work: production levels will be way lower than they otherwise would have been.

[kalm]

Agree with the last sentence and I’m no fan of the Ayatollahs either. My point is that the revolution happened for a reason and the west contributed to that as well as the poverty. We are not always the good guy either and also contribute to problems on the global stage. Imagine if Moussadegh had remained in power and nationalized their oil like he was promising to do along with a host of other populist reforms….

He did nationalize their oil in 1951, and it led to a major decline in Iranian oil production & exports. Nationalizing oil doesn’t work: production levels will be way lower than they otherwise would have been.

Link? Data? It seems to work for Norway.

[BDKJMU]

I agree with not getting involved in regime change. Unless the Ayatollah straps himself to the door of one of those deeply buried nuclear facilities, I wouldn't advocate any action against him. For exactly the same reasons you call out, that's not our fight.

Where I disagree is that it is our fight, indeed the international communities fight, to stop Iran getting the bomb. All of this started with the IAEA declaring that Iran was in violation, significantly, of enriching material closer to a weapon. Israel didn't act until then. If diplomacy can result in those facilities being disassembled without a bomb, great. But Iran has been at this for a couple of decades and spanning 3 different Presidents at least. If they don't agree, then the bombs drop. If Israel is capable of dropping that bomb, I'm fine with giving them what they need to do that. If we have to do it (the bombs are controlled via satellite on their descent) then we do it. However we get to not having those facilities exist is fine by me.

MOAB is dropped by modified C130 E and Hs, so don’t see why Israelis couldn’t with some modifications, as they have C130 E & H.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_MOAB
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/103_Squadron_(Israel)

Never mind on the MOAB. AF has better. It’s the ‘MOP’

It’s called the GBU-57 A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb, or MOP. It’s the world’s largest non-nuclear bunker-busting bomb, weighing a whopping 30,000 pounds. Due to its weight, few bombers are capable of delivering the MOP, and the U.S. Air Force utilizes the B-2 stealth bomber for such an operation. The U.S. can’t just give the MOP to Israel, as our ally does not have aircraft capable of delivering the bunker-buster. An Israeli B-2 purchase isn’t happening.

The question before President Donald Trump is whether to send the U.S. Air Force over the skies of Iran to drop the MOP on its most secure nuclear development facility, Fordow.

While the Israel Defense Forces have successfully taken out several of Iran’s nuke sites, Fordow remains difficult — the facility is located 200-300 feet under a mountain. Indeed, it is believed that the MOP is the only bunker-buster capable of penetrating deep enough to destroy the facility…..

https://patriotpost.us/articles/118279- ... 2025-06-20

[UNI88]

He did nationalize their oil in 1951, and it led to a major decline in Iranian oil production & exports. Nationalizing oil doesn’t work: production levels will be way lower than they otherwise would have been.

Link? Data? It seems to work for Norway.

Is oil in Norway completely nationalized? Or partially nationalized with transparency and accountability?

Tale of two oil-rich countries: Venezuela vs. Norway


Iran, the Middle East and world probably would have been better off with Moussadegh than what we have now but not because of nationalized oil.

I would agree with BDK that the Iranian people would prefer the royal family to what they have but think they would greatly prefer a democratic republic to either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bobcat]

I bet most Iranians if they could anonymously choose,
would pick the royal family over the Ayatollahs/Khamenei.

Pro US autocrat better than having the American hating Ayatollahs. The Iranian Revolution/overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty led Iran to:
-8 year war with Iraq
-being a state sponsor of terrorism
-Sharia law/women treated like chattel
-their economy going to shit.

Iran is floating on oil. They were on the verge of becoming an economic powerhouse in the ME before the revolution.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/i ... evolution/

No sane person would argue that overall Iran wouldn’t be much better off with the Ayatollahs gone and replaced by the Royal Family. And spare me any claptrap anbout inequality under Pahlavi. Currently there is equality in Iran: Most of Iran is equally poor.

The problem would be how would you get from A (the Ayatollahs) to B (The Royal Family) without an Iranian Civil War. 1/4 of the Syrian population fled during their Civil war, and Iran is 4x as big. You flood Europe with a couple million more migrants like you did in 2015-2016 and you’ll see all the right wing parties you love taking power (AFD, National Front in France, etc).

Again, though, not the US’s fight.

Agree with the last sentence and I’m no fan of the Ayatollahs either. My point is that the revolution happened for a reason and the west contributed to that as well as the poverty. We are not always the good guy either and also contribute to problems on the global stage. Imagine if Moussadegh had remained in power and nationalized their oil like he was promising to do along with a host of other populist reforms….

Yeah then they would be just like Venezuela now! Everyone should strive for that!!!

[kalm]

Link? Data? It seems to work for Norway.

Is oil in Norway completely nationalized? Or partially nationalized with transparency and accountability?

Tale of two oil-rich countries: Venezuela vs. Norway


Iran, the Middle East and world probably would have been better off with Moussadegh than what we have now but not because of nationalized oil.

I would agree with BDK that the Iranian people would prefer the royal family to what they have but think they would greatly prefer a democratic republic to either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nationalizing oil was just one aspect of what he represented and were mostly just speculating here. But your last sentence is especially true and we (and the Brit’s) got in the way of that…. My original point.

[BDKJMU]

He did nationalize their oil in 1951, and it led to a major decline in Iranian oil production & exports. Nationalizing oil doesn’t work: production levels will be way lower than they otherwise would have been.

Link? Data? It seems to work for Norway.

Ok. How about Venezuela?

[kalm]

Link? Data? It seems to work for Norway.

Ok. How about Venezuela?

Venezuela what? It’s kind of a complicated subject.

[UNI88]

Ok. How about Venezuela?

Venezuela what? It’s kind of a complicated subject.

Venezuela is both a hellhole where the socialist government has fvcked up it’s nationalized oil industry and an idyllic paradise whose so-called refugees fled to the US for no reason and yanking their temporary protections was completely justified and had nothing to do with the color of their skin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Venezuela what? It’s kind of a complicated subject.

Venezuela is both a hellhole where the socialist government has fvcked up it’s nationalized oil industry and an idyllic paradise whose so-called refugees fled to the US for no reason and yanking their temporary protections was completely justified and had nothing to do with the color of their skin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know.

I was just trying to see how the answer “Venezuela” is any different than if someone asked you to describe libertarianism and your answer was “Somalia”.

[Caribbean Hen]

I bet most Iranians if they could anonymously choose,
would pick the royal family over the Ayatollahs/Khamenei.

Pro US autocrat better than having the American hating Ayatollahs. The Iranian Revolution/overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty led Iran to:
-8 year war with Iraq
-being a state sponsor of terrorism
-Sharia law/women treated like chattel
-their economy going to shit.

Iran is floating on oil. They were on the verge of becoming an economic powerhouse in the ME before the revolution.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/i ... evolution/

No sane person would argue that overall Iran wouldn’t be much better off with the Ayatollahs gone and replaced by the Royal Family. And spare me any claptrap anbout inequality under Pahlavi. Currently there is equality in Iran: Most of Iran is equally poor.

The problem would be how would you get from A (the Ayatollahs) to B (The Royal Family) without an Iranian Civil War. 1/4 of the Syrian population fled during their Civil war, and Iran is 4x as big. You flood Europe with a couple million more migrants like you did in 2015-2016 and you’ll see all the right wing parties you love taking power (AFD, National Front in France, etc).

Again, though, not the US’s fight.

Agree with the last sentence and I’m no fan of the Ayatollahs either. My point is that the revolution happened for a reason and the west contributed to that as well as the poverty. We are not always the good guy either and also contribute to problems on the global stage. Imagine if Moussadegh had remained in power and nationalized their oil like he was promising to do along with a host of other populist reforms….

Yep, all your heroes have been wrong about everything on foreign policy. You should be worshiping Trump to clean up the mess that all of these self-proclaimed geniuses caused

[kalm]

Agree with the last sentence and I’m no fan of the Ayatollahs either. My point is that the revolution happened for a reason and the west contributed to that as well as the poverty. We are not always the good guy either and also contribute to problems on the global stage. Imagine if Moussadegh had remained in power and nationalized their oil like he was promising to do along with a host of other populist reforms….

Yep, all your heroes have been wrong about everything on foreign policy. You should be worshiping Trump to clean up the mess that all of these self-proclaimed geniuses caused

Oh lord. Who do you think my historical heroes are? I need a good laugh.

[UNI88]

Two weeks' notice: Trump's deadline on Iran is a familiar one

Trump has promised action on questions or decisions in “two weeks” over a dozen times in the last two months, according to an NBC News review — and he used the same timeline repeatedly during his first term in office.

“We’re going to be announcing something, I would say over the next two or three weeks, that will be phenomenal in terms of tax and developing our aviation infrastructure,” Trump said of tax overhaul plans on Feb. 9, 2017.

He released a one-page outline of the plan 11 weeks later, according to a Bloomberg review that year.

He went on to repeatedly cite the time frame for impending actions on health care and infrastructure that never materialized during his first four years in office.

Trump’s use of the timing prediction has accelerated in recent weeks — and he’s used it on items ranging from trade deals and tariffs to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Much of what he's predicted hasn't come to pass, with questions he's said he'd answer remaining unanswered.

Doh!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caribbean Hen]

Yep, all your heroes have been wrong about everything on foreign policy. You should be worshiping Trump to clean up the mess that all of these self-proclaimed geniuses caused

Oh lord. Who do you think my historical heroes are? I need a good laugh.

People who have been consistently wrong

[kalm]

Oh lord. Who do you think my historical heroes are? I need a good laugh.

People who have been consistently wrong

Be specific. List a few out and tell me what they were wrong about.

[BDKJMU]

Two weeks' notice: Trump's deadline on Iran is a familiar one
Doh!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

Two weeks' notice: Trump's deadline on Iran is a familiar one
Doh!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you really believe that his acting in less than 2 weeks this time erases all of the times he missed a 2 week deadline that he set?

If yes, I eagerly await your deposit on the oceanfront condo in eastern Montana. I do not accept IOUs from your boyfriend, the Nigerian prince.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Can we just combine this the other Iran thread? We’re doing Bibi’s heavy lifting for him anyway.

[BDKJMU]

Can we just combine this the other Iran thread? We’re doing Bibi’s heavy lifting for him anyway.

Wait, weren’t you the one who created a 2nd Israel/Iran thread?

[kalm]

Can we just combine this the other Iran thread? We’re doing Bibi’s heavy lifting for him anyway.

Wait, weren’t you the one who created a 2nd Israel/Iran thread?

Yes?