Israel attacks Iran - What will be the wider implications?

[Tetchytyke]

do these people actually know what happens to LGBTQ+ people in Iran?

Yes, they get turned into ground beef by Israeli and US heavy ordnance.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Sunday at 09:25 ==

I'd like to see them protesting against Trump and Netanyahu rather than for the Ayatollah

Some people are just idiots. Enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.

I don’t think many Iranians will be sad to see the fall of the regime. I certainly won’t, much as I fear for what comes next.

But the Iranian civilians being turned into corned beef by the Israelis and the US aren’t the Ayatollah. Which is the problem. The Israelis will cheerfully blow up an entire apartment block to (supposedly) target one low ranking official.

 

[Russel]

Yes, they get turned into ground beef by Israeli and US heavy ordnance.

And the Iranian regime allows them to live a peaceful life?

 

[Railwaycat]

I would suggest that this has been a coordinated plan all along - the Israelis to neutralise the already poor air defences, and then the Americans to send in the B2's with little chance of any losses. All this negotiating talk has been just bull---t, if it wasn't the Israelis would have paused, even if only for a few days, to give negotiations a chance to at least start. The Iranian position of not negotiating under fire seems reasonable to me.

 

[Purple Train]

They have no critical thinking skills and are extremely tribal. They hate Israel and the US so much they will side with whoever is their enemy, no matter how bad that enemy is. The reverse also exists, they loathe all of Israel's enemies because of their blind allegiance. Anyone who puts tribalism aside and goes on principles will find plenty of faults in both sides and apply history and logic to find the right solutions.

This is a great post, and one I determinedly agree with. Peace won't be found in extravagant displays of polarisation and tribalism on these distant shores. Khamenei is not for peace. Netanyahu is not for peace. Hezbollah is not for peace. Hamas is not for peace. Trump is not for peace.

I'm extremely worried about the latest developments. Continued warfare will help nobody. This isn't Russia and Ukraine, this isn't a (relatively) uncomplicated war of aggression. This is a war in which there will never be winners - only losers for leaders, all with bloodied hands.

I'm also extremely worried about the talk of assassinating Khamenei, and the previous assassinations of Hamas and Hezbollah top brass. I don't want them dead, I don't want Netanyahu dead, I don't want Trump dead.

I want them in The Hague. Because only justice will save the world now, and I don't mean that lightly. Violence engenders violence engenders violence, and Trump has pushed it closer to spiralling out of control than ever before.

Pro-anyone protests will do nothing except continue the polarised spiral, as you said.

Swords into ploughshares.

Please.

 

[nw1]

I want them in The Hague. Because only justice will save the world now, and I don't mean that lightly. Violence engenders violence engenders violence, and Trump has pushed it closer to spiralling out of control than ever before.

Indeed.

The real enemies of the world are aggressive, war-mongering, militaristic meat-heads.

This applies to all of : Putin, Trump, Netanyahu and Khamenei.

All four of them deserve to spend the rest of their pathetic little lives locked in prison cells. Despicable excuses for human beings, the lot of them.

 

[JamesT]

Indeed.

The real enemies of the world are aggressive, war-mongering, militaristic meat-heads.

This applies to all of : Putin, Trump, Netanyahu and Khamenei.

All four of them deserve to spend the rest of their pathetic little lives locked in prison cells. Despicable excuses for human beings, the lot of them.

And I see Badenoch is coming out as a war-mongering, militaristic hawk:



Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq53l41gl8jo

What a load of BS from Badenoch. Fawning adulation of her apparent idol in the White House. The world needs to reject all pro-war politicians. It's her apparent idol Trump who is "threatening the UK", not some maybe-non-existent nuclear weapons that would only ever be used as a deterrent.
It's time the West turns against the militaristic Right. The militaristic Right within the West are at least as big a problem as dictatorial regimes such as those of Russia and Iran.

You may have missed the recent arrests of Iranian nationals for terror offences? Which isn’t an isolated incident, but one of a number over the years. They may not have the capability for a direct military assault on the UK, but that doesn’t mean they’re not a threat.
That’s an impressive amount of faith that Iran is only trying to gain nuclear weapons for deterrence. This is a theocratic state without the usual safeguards of a democracy. There’s a countdown clock in Tehran for the destruction of Israel, based on a prediction by the Ayatollah.

 

[Annetts key]

This is a great post, and one I determinedly agree with. Peace won't be found in extravagant displays of polarisation and tribalism on these distant shores. Khamenei is not for peace. Netanyahu is not for peace. Hezbollah is not for peace. Hamas is not for peace. Trump is not for peace.

I'm extremely worried about the latest developments. Continued warfare will help nobody. This isn't Russia and Ukraine, this isn't a (relatively) uncomplicated war of aggression. This is a war in which there will never be winners - only losers for leaders, all with bloodied hands.

I'm also extremely worried about the talk of assassinating Khamenei, and the previous assassinations of Hamas and Hezbollah top brass. I don't want them dead, I don't want Netanyahu dead, I don't want Trump dead.

I want them in The Hague. Because only justice will save the world now, and I don't mean that lightly. Violence engenders violence engenders violence, and Trump has pushed it closer to spiralling out of control than ever before.

Pro-anyone protests will do nothing except continue the polarised spiral, as you said.

Swords into ploughshares.

Please.

Absolutely agree with you.

Unfortunately, with the current leaders of the countries that are involved, none are the least bit interested in peace at the moment. Netanyahu especially, IMHO he is a warmonger.

Trump, if he wanted, prior to getting the U.S.A. involved, may have been able to calm things down (but he would have had to put extreme pressure on Netanyahu), but he has completely blown any reasonable possible of this now.

 

[nw1]

You may have missed the recent arrests of Iranian nationals for terror offences? Which isn’t an isolated incident, but one of a number over the years. They may not have the capability for a direct military assault on the UK, but that doesn’t mean they’re not a threat.
That’s an impressive amount of faith that Iran is only trying to gain nuclear weapons for deterrence. This is a theocratic state without the usual safeguards of a democracy. There’s a countdown clock in Tehran for the destruction of Israel, based on a prediction by the Ayatollah.

And you honestly think that Trump's and Netanyahu's actions have lessened the threat to the UK, in the form of terrorism?

They're more likely to want revenge now. Trump and Netanyahu have IMO increased the risk of a terrorism attack on the UK, not lessened it. Time for Starmer and the West to cease diplomatic relations with Israel until there is a change of government, and time for Starmer and the West to universally condemn Trump.

As I said, if there is a terror attack on the UK, both Trump and Netanyahu will have blood on their hands. Time to stop making excuses for them.

Remember Russia (and its predecessor the USSR, which was basically imperialist Russia) have had nuclear weapons for 80 years. Despite some pretty obnoxious leaders for most of that time, they've never used them against the West. Why would Iran use them when Russia have not?

 

[Trackman]

Remember Russia (and its predecessor the USSR, which was basically imperialist Russia) have had nuclear weapons for 80 years. Despite some pretty obnoxious leaders for most of that time, they've never used them against the West. Why would Iran use them when Russia have not?

North Korea springs to mind, why did they leave them alone?

 

[AlterEgo]

Remember Russia (and its predecessor the USSR, which was basically imperialist Russia) have had nuclear weapons for 80 years. Despite some pretty obnoxious leaders for most of that time, they've never used them against the West. Why would Iran use them when Russia have not?

So it was alright for Iran to have nuclear weapons then?

Should any state be allowed them?

 

[Annetts key]

Even if Iran did develop a fully working nuclear weapon (and remember, the U.K. struggled with this with our own nuclear weapons programme, which is why we bought American nuclear weapons in the end for a practical nuclear weapons system), they know that if they used it against Israel, the U.S.A. or any other country that is part of the "Western" alliance, it would be the end of Iran. As there would be a much bigger retaliatory strikes against Iran.

Nuclear weapons are seen as a defensive system in that it gives your enemy something else to consider before they make the decision on whether to attack. If Iran did have working nuclear weapons, do you think Israel would have attacked first? Do you think they would have taken the risk of Iran launching retaliatory strikes on Israel using nuclear weapons and potentially wiping out a large part of the population of Israel?

Please, don't misinterpret what I have said, I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. But then, I don't want Israel or North Korea to have them either. Or indeed, many other countries were democracy is weak (and with Trump in power, that may include the U.S.A.!).

 

[Carlisle]

. Netanyahu especially, IMHO he is a warmonger.

In the past he’s hinted a peace settlement’s through painful compromises etc but given the duration & casualty rates of the Gaza war I can’t see him emerging with virtually any credibility no matter how well it goes for him in Iran .

 

[Sorcerer]

Remember Russia (and its predecessor the USSR, which was basically imperialist Russia) have had nuclear weapons for 80 years. Despite some pretty obnoxious leaders for most of that time, they've never used them against the West. Why would Iran use them when Russia have not?

The reason Russia has never used nuclear weapons and why Iran most likely wouldn't is because there will be no winners in the case of a retaliatory strike, which is what's commonly known as mutually assured destruction. Nevertheless it has proven to be an effective deterrent, and as I've mentioned earlier in this thread, it is the only way to level the playing field against hostile superpowers.

This isn't to say that I believe Iran should have nuclear weapons, but there is a very good reason from a defence standpoint to have them, especially when one of your enemies is the United States. Nuclear weapons are the only reason why NATO forces haven't already put boots on the ground in Ukraine and stormed Moscow within a week, and even a warmonger like Netanyahu would've thought twice about attacking Iran if they had fully developed nuclear missiles.

EDIT: Sorry, misread and misunderstood the original comment. Ignore me!

 

[Russel]

What is the end game here now then?

Constant spiral of escalation now the US are involved as Iran will feel compelled to respond, resulting in the US striking back, rinse and repeat?

 

[Annetts key]

What is the end game here now then?

Constant spiral of escalation now the US are involved as Iran will feel compelled to respond, resulting in the US striking back, rinse and repeat?

No one knows...

Not even Trump. He probably thinks that Iran will now "surrender" ... Which of course is not going to happen anytime soon. Therefore unless Israel run low on bombs and missiles, yes, the war will continue...

 

[Tetchytyke]

So it was alright for Iran to have nuclear weapons then?

Should any state be allowed them?

An interesting question.

There’s only one country that has ever used a nuclear weapon in anger. And that country spends its time lecturing about how nobody else but them should be allowed to have them.

Looking at their history since WWII, both in wars they’ve openly stated and wars they’ve covertly stated, it’s a leap to say that the US any less of a threat to world peace than Iran.

Whether they should be “allowed” to have them doesn’t really matter. Israel aren’t “allowed” them either, nor are India, yet both have them.

But it’s fair to say that if the Iran regime hadn’t complied with the negotiated de-escalation of their nuclear regime in the 2000s they’d have a bomb now. And if they had a bomb now they’d not be looking at regime obliteration.

The lesson from all of this for many countries’ leaders will be that they need to get nuclear weapons to protect themselves.

And the Iranian regime allows them to live a peaceful life?

I’m sure that, as their apartment block gets turned to rubble and US explosives separate their head from their body, they’ll be glad that at least they weren’t brutally killed for being gay.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Sunday at 17:06 ==

Constant spiral of escalation now the US are involved as Iran will feel compelled to respond, resulting in the US striking back, rinse and repeat?

Almost certainly.

I think it’s very obvious that Iran don’t have the military capability to strike back through conventional military means. The regime may even topple.

But look at Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party leadership went to ground then came back a year or so later as ISIL/ISIS. And that went well for all concerned.

I’m certain we’ll have a terrorist attack very shortly. Everyone will say it couldn’t have been predicted or prevented. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Sorcerer]

There’s only one country that has ever used a nuclear weapon in anger. And that country spends its time lecturing about how nobody else but them should be allowed to have them.

I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War was done out of more than just anger, and arguably it was the best choice available at the time. However it should be of no surprise that the country that stands to gain the most from unilateral disarmament would be the biggest advocate of it.

On the wider scale I think this might put some of the Gulf countries between a rock and a hard place, particularly Saudi Arabia. They condemned Israel for their air strikes, and in the past few years they have started to have a warmer relationship with Iran, albeit with slow and complicated steps, but they are also key US allies in the region with the US selling military gear and provide securities guarantees to the kingdom, partly because of Iran in the first place.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War was done out of more than just anger

Sorry, to clarify, “Using something in anger” is an idiom which means that something is used for real, not as a practice.

Maybe it was justified, maybe it wasn’t, but the US is the only country which has ever used one for real. And they dropped it on civilians.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Sunday at 18:14 ==

On the wider scale I think this might put some of the Gulf countries between a rock and a hard place

It’ll be interesting to see how they manage the optics on this.

I don’t think any of the GCC will be particularly devastated to see the Iranian regime fall. Yemen is such a disaster- a hidden disaster- because Iran and Saudi were fighting a proxy war there. Saudi losing that proxy war didn’t go down well.

But equally they can’t really start siding with Israel either. I think they’ll just keep quiet and count the cash coming in from the huge spike in oil prices.

 

[Sorcerer]

Sorry, to clarify, “Using something in anger” is an idiom which means that something is used for real, not as a practice.

Oh, my apologies, I wasn't aware of this idiom.

It’ll be interesting to see how they manage the optics on this.

I don’t think any of the GCC will be particularly devastated to see the Iranian regime fall. Yemen is such a disaster- a hidden disaster- because Iran and Saudi were fighting a proxy war there. Saudi losing that proxy war didn’t go down well.

But equally they can’t really start siding with Israel either. I think they’ll just keep quiet and count the cash coming in from the huge spike in oil prices.

I honestly don't expect it'll be much trouble for them to navigate. The Gulf states have been dancing on the thin line for years when it comes to Israel. They might publicly support the plight of Palestinians, especially for their populace, but they aren't too keen on providing them refuge, nor are they keen on angering the US by making enemies of Israel. Their leaders seem pretty well adapted geopolitically speaking.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Oh, my apologies, I wasn't aware of this idiom.

No worries, sorry I wasn’t clearer!

 

[nw1]

So it was alright for Iran to have nuclear weapons then?

Should any state be allowed them?

Well, no state should have them really. The ideal is to make nuclear weapons extinct, but this can only be done by countries voluntarily giving them up. I'm not sure how you persuade the likes of Russia to do this - but it's the only realistic way to stamp them out.

But should third-party countries go around bombing those countries that might have them?
That's scarcely going to do wonders for friendly relations.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well, no state should have them really. The ideal is to make nuclear weapons extinct, but this can only be done by countries voluntarily giving them up. I'm not sure how you persuade the likes of Russia to do this - but it's the only realistic way to stamp them out.

But should third-party countries go around bombing those countries that might have them?

Iran did not have any nuclear weapons, we can be reasonably confident of that - but they did want them (and who can blame them? Look at Ukraine, North Korea etc).

Almost nobody in the world wants Iran to have nukes except Pakistan. Non-proliferation is not a viable option and remains a platitude.

The issue with the US and Israel (allegedly) destroying Iran's capacity to attain nuclear statehood is not what has practically happened but the overreach and gall to do so - perception is everything, and Britain is right to be reasonably distant from it.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Iran did not have any nuclear weapons, we can be reasonably confident of that - but they did want them (and who can blame them? Look at Ukraine, North Korea etc).

Almost nobody in the world wants Iran to have nukes except Pakistan. Non-proliferation is not a viable option and remains a platitude.

The issue with the US and Israel (allegedly) destroying Iran's capacity to attain nuclear statehood is not what has practically happened but the overreach and gall to do so - perception is everything, and Britain is right to be reasonably distant from it.

Not sure Starmers statement is an unequivocal distancing of what took place

Iran’s nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat.

The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in the region is a priority. We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis.

He basically endorsed more illegal action against a state that wasn't taking provoking action albeit i get the intent that should they ever acquire an operational nuclear weapon they may have used it but that applies to all regimes that own one.

Anyhow that boat has now sailed and with an impotent UN we have to hope Iran realises US/Israel will just up the ante so best come to the table

 

[DarloRich]

Why would Iran use them when Russia have not?

because Soviet Russia wasn't run by religious fundamentalists.

In any event any Iranian nuclear missile isn't going to be used against the "west" it is to be used to obliterate Israel.

he issue with the US and Israel (allegedly) destroying Iran's capacity to attain nuclear statehood is not what has practically happened but the overreach and gall to do so - perception is everything, and Britain is right to be reasonably distant from it.

Both the USA and Israel are right to remove the capability of Iran to hold nuclear weapons. We are right to support those aims. We should be blunt about that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 09:16 ==

The ideal is to make nuclear weapons extinct, but this can only be done by countries voluntarily giving them up. I'm not sure how you persuade the likes of Russia to do this - but it's the only realistic way to stamp them out.

I will give up my nuclear weapons at exactly the same time as everyone else. Until then I will keep them.

 

[Yew]

Both the USA and Israel are right to remove the capability of Iran to hold nuclear weapons. We are right to support those aims. We should be blunt about that.

I fully support actions to prevent Iran having nuclear weapons, however that should be done by looking at a deal (like the one signed in 2015 Trump pulled out of), and not by breaching international law by committing acts of war.

 

[DarloRich]

I fully support actions to prevent Iran having nuclear weapons, however that should be done by looking at a deal (like the one signed in 2015 Trump pulled out of), and not by breaching international law by committing acts of war.

Whilst I agree with your sentiment realpolitik rules these days. I have no problem with bombing Iran to remove thier nuclear weapons programme AND would not be unhappy if we could deliver regime change as a side effect. ( as long as we get sensible people in charge!)

The Iranian regime are NOT good guys afterall.

 

[nw1]

In any event any Iranian nuclear missile isn't going to be used against the "west" it is to be used to obliterate Israel.

And potentially impact upon surrounding Islamic states? I can't see Iran wanting to poison much of the population of Jordan and Syria for example. Might even parts of Iran itself be close enough to Israel to get some impact?

In any case, would Iran actually nuke Israel, when the likely response is catastrophic conventional bombing of Iran by the west?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 10:46 ==

because Soviet Russia wasn't run by religious fundamentalists.

In any event any Iranian nuclear missile isn't going to be used against the "west" it is to be used to obliterate Israel.

Both the USA and Israel are right to remove the capability of Iran to hold nuclear weapons. We are right to support those aims. We should be blunt about that.

Even though it might lead to further instability in the Middle East, greater hatred of the West by the citizens of the Middle East, and terror attacks against the West?

For this reason we should be absolutely condeming Trump and Netanyahu's militarism.

 

[DarloRich]

In any case, would Iran actually nuke Israel, when the likely response is catastrophic conventional bombing of Iran by the west?

Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 10:50 ==

Even though it might lead to further instability in the Middle East, greater hatred of the West by the citizens of the Middle East, and terror attacks against the West?

So we should do nothing about dodgy regimes acquiring weapons of mass destruction then? You do know the Iranian regime is, erm a bit oppresive?

For this reason we should be absolutely condeming Trump and Netanyahu's militarism.

What is the alternative? Ask nicely if they wouldn't mind awfully desisting?

 

[Belperpete]

Whilst I agree with your sentiment realpolitik rules these days. I have no problem with bombing Iran to remove thier nuclear weapons programme AND would not be unhappy if we could deliver regime change as a side effect. ( as long as we get sensible people in charge!)

The Iranian regime are NOT good guys afterall.

The problem with such justifications is that other countries and regimes then feel entitled to use it. Would you be happy if someone started bombing us because they didn't think we should have nuclear weapons, or wanted to see regime change here?

As the saying goes, do unto others as you would have done unto you.

 

[nw1]

Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 10:50 ==


So we should do nothing about dodgy regimes acquiring weapons of mass destruction then? You do know the Iranian regime is, erm a bit oppresive?

Well yes, but will aggressive militarism solve anything?

All sorts of regimes are oppressive but we don't go throwing bombs at all of them. Apartheid was oppressive but we didn't bomb South Africa. Mugabe was oppressive but we didn't bomb Zimbabwe. Pinochet was oppressive but we didn't bomb Chile; indeed he was BFF of one of our former leaders.

What is the alternative? Ask nicely if they wouldn't mind awfully desisting?

Maybe having talks with them to understand what they want. I suspect a lot of the anti-Western feeling in that part of the world is down to the constant meddling in the region by the federal US.

I'm sorry but I despise this kind of militarism. I despise the Vietnam War, where, in my view, ridiculous paranoia resulted in the US Government sending many of its young men to their deaths in a far-away land, all dying for absolutely nothing. And, within my own memory, I despised both the 1991 and the 2003 Gulf Wars and the 2001 Afghan war with unbridled passion.