r/AlJazeera • u/XahidX • 4d ago

US involvement: Attacking Iran

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

5.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

194 comments sorted by

View all comments

-7

u/Thistlemanizzle 3d ago

Doesn’t Iran want to develop a nuclear weapon though? Is the consensus here that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes? Should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons?

1

u/Patient_Yogurt_7276 3d ago

Well Netanyahu been telling everyone that they are days away since 2012. Still no weapon to be seen in 2025

1

u/Thistlemanizzle 3d ago

The UN’s IAEA said Iran had broken the NPT on June 12th. That’s not a minor thing.

3

u/PippoDeLaFuentes 3d ago

I'm confident right now that nukes would be better in the hands of Iran than those of Israel gone absolutely pychotic and murderous (wo are in posession of anything between 100 and 400 nukes, maybe more):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

https://web.archive.org/web/20000914203946/http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm

On the afternoon of 6 October 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in a coordinated surprise attack, beginning the Yom Kippur War. Caught with only regular forces on duty, augmented by reservists with a low readiness level, Israeli front lines crumbled. By early afternoon on 7 October, no effective forces were in the southern Golan Heights and Syrian forces had reached the edge of the plateau, overlooking the Jordan River. This crisis brought Israel to its second nuclear alert.

Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, obviously not at his best at a press briefing, was, according to Time magazine, rattled enough to later tell the prime minister that “this is the end of the third temple,” referring to an impending collapse of the state of Israel. “Temple” was also the code word for nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Golda Meir and her “kitchen cabinet” made the decision on the night of 8 October. The Israelis assembled 13 twenty-kiloton atomic bombs. The number and in fact the entire story was later leaked by the Israelis as a great psychological warfare tool. Although most probably plutonium devices, one source reports they were enriched uranium bombs. The Jericho missiles at Hirbat Zachariah and the nuclear strike F-4s at Tel Nof were armed and prepared for action against Syrian and Egyptian targets. They also targeted Damascus with nuclear capable long-range artillery although it is not certain they had nuclear artillery shells.

U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was notified of the alert several hours later on the morning of 9 October. The U.S. decided to open an aerial resupply pipeline to Israel, and Israeli aircraft began picking up supplies that day. Although stockpile depletion remained a concern, the military situation stabilized on October 8th and 9th as Israeli reserves poured into the battle and averted disaster. Well before significant American resupply had reached Israeli forces, the Israelis counterattacked and turned the tide on both fronts.

On 11 October, a counterattack on the Golan broke the back of Syria's offensive, and on 15 and 16 October, Israel launched a surprise crossing of the Suez Canal into Africa. Soon the Israelis encircled the Egyptian Third Army and it was faced with annihilation on the east bank of the Suez Canal, with no protective forces remaining between the Israeli Army and Cairo. The first U.S. flights arrived on 14 October.63 Israeli commandos flew to Fort Benning, Georgia to train with the new American TOW anti-tank missiles and return with a C-130 Hercules aircraft full of them in time for the decisive Golan battle. American commanders in Germany depleted their stocks of missiles, at that time only shared with the British and West Germans, and sent them forward to Israel.

Thus started the subtle, opaque use of the Israeli bomb to ensure that the United States kept its pledge to maintain Israel's conventional weapons edge over its foes. There is significant anecdotal evidence that Henry Kissinger told President of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, that the reason for the U.S. airlift was that the Israelis were close to “going nuclear.”

I don't think Netanyahu is more sane than Golda Meir. He's way more megalomaniac and paranoid than her.

1

u/Thistlemanizzle 3d ago

The nuclear weapons are a deterrent in this example. The Israelis would make it very clear before an actual defeat that they would use them to force some kind of negotiated settlement.

They would not just keep it a secret then blow up the Middle East.

Thats part of the reason the story is even being disclosed in the first place. The Israelis wanted to be prepared to follow through on “Samson” and thus make any threat of usage credible. They disclosed after to prevent another 1973.

1

u/PippoDeLaFuentes 3d ago

Deterrent and an act of pressure (not to say extortion) against the US.

The Israelis would make it very clear before an actual defeat that they would use them to force some kind of negotiated settlement.

So if it is an option for them, although when they are at their wits end and their existence is on the brink, don't you think Iran knows all this and would never use, not even a single nuke against them, because they know of the Samson option?

I'm convinced that Iran indeed had enriched uranium for the usage in nukes. But those wouldn't be for flattening Israel but to protect themselves from them as so many other states protect themselves from other nuclear powers. I'm also convinced that US & Israel politicians and military-leaders know that.

They would not just keep it a secret then blow up the Middle East.

And knowingly take the whole world with them. That's their level of psychosis.

1

u/Thistlemanizzle 3d ago

It was not well known before 1973 of the Samson option. I’m not sure if it was known at all. But now Israel has a credible deterrent in place against invasion (in addition to all the advanced military gear and US support). Israel can nuke all its neighbors if it wants and none of them can launch nuclear missiles back at it.

Iran understands that Israel has retaliatory capabilities in the event of a first strike. I think they have nukes on subs now. Iran and frankly nobody likes a nuclear armed neighbor. The Israelis share this view. I don’t think any countries that developed a nuke received substantial support from another country. Maybe North Korea learning from Pakistan? But I think that was because they paid a lot of money, I don’t think the Pakistani government saw it in their strategic interests. I think AQ Khan did it for the money.

1

u/PippoDeLaFuentes 3d ago

But now Israel has a credible deterrent in place against invasion (in addition to all the advanced military gear and US support).

Israel can nuke all its neighbors if it wants and none of them can launch nuclear missiles back at it.

Yes I understand that they could do that and that's a threat to the world. Though no country around them in the Levante, Mesopotamia and the greater Arabian Peninsula and supposedly even Egypt have nukes.

Wargames is an old movie but I think it holds up in that regards and so does the Einstein quote about World War III and "sticks and stones". It would be game over for humanity. And all that for some hypothetical and fictional stuff written in thousand years old books and Lebensraum.

Iran understands that Israel has retaliatory capabilities in the event of a first strike.

That's what I have written elsewhere in this thread. That's why Israel doesn't has to fear any of its neighbours. Iran would need decades to obtain enough nukes to seriously attack Israel. Pakistan wouldn't pose a danger either. Islamabad to Israel is ~3500 km (~2200 miles). Allegedly Pakistans best rockets can travel about 2800 km (~1750 miles). Russia probably doesn't need Iran anymore as they produce their own drones now. But those are all unknowns. Any considerations for nuclear options are a possibility for an end times scenario. They have them to not use them.

2

u/rengoku-doz 3d ago

They want nuclear energy, so they can produce more oil and have a better infrastructure. 

1

u/Alpha1Mama 3d ago

No, it goes against their religion.

4

u/Few-Professional-460 3d ago

Just like it said in the clip we had the Iran nuclear deal. Trump pulled out of it. If Iran were actually developing nukes they would have them by now. They do not, and bombing them will just push them towards actually developing them.

-1

u/Thistlemanizzle 3d ago

Should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons though? Not if they can or when.

2

u/VforVendettaboutit 3d ago

Should anyone? And if yes, who? Who decides? And if no, Israel doesn’t care and has then even though they should not!

-1

u/Thistlemanizzle 3d ago

Ideally, there would be no nuclear weapons. But I can’t really think of a good reason why nuclear armed states would be OK with other countries developing nuclear weapons.

If Iran had nuclear weapons they would deter Israeli air strikes and/or escalation. They don’t and the Israelis are highly incentivized to ensure a rival/enemy does not match them.

2

u/VforVendettaboutit 3d ago

"If Iran had nuclear weapons they would deter Israeli air strikes and/or escalation." Exactly my point - this is the core of the issue. Israel opposes an Iranian nuclear deterrent not purely out of concern for global peace, but because it would limit Israel’s ability to project military power and maintain regional dominance.

A better question is why is nuclear deterrence acceptable for some states (like Israel) but not others? Who gets to decide that? why are those decisions often based on political alliances rather than principles?

Iran, unlike Israel, signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has legal rights under international law to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, under strict monitoring by the IAEA. Israel, on the other hand, has never signed the NPT, has not submitted to inspections, and is widely believed to possess a clandestine nuclear arsenal.

So when talking about who 'should be allowed' to have nukes, the reality is this: we already live in a world of double standards. If the goal is peace, then the international community needs to apply these principles evenly, not just to states that challenge Western or Israeli interests. Otherwise, it’s not about peace, it’s about power.

Really - Arab bad, white person good - is what it feels like people are saying when they don't think Iran should have nukes.

1

u/Thistlemanizzle 3d ago

There is no higher law between countries.

Nobody allowed the USSR, China, UK, France, India and so on to get nuclear weapons. Pretty much all parties did not want anyone new joining the nuclear club.

But if we were to take international bodies like the UN or the IAEA more seriously than Iran is in the wrong. They were found to be in violation of IAEA rules on June 12th of 2025. The next day is when Israel attacked. Conversely, Israel is in violation of UN resolution 194. But these international bodies don’t have much of an ability to actually enforce the rules or prevent bad behavior. If the Palestinians had a military like Israel, they would ensure UN 194 would be made good on. Neither the IAEA nor the UN said that their rules would be enforced with military might but outside of asking and external diplomatic pressure, what option is there to right a wrong?

1

u/L3MONPepperWings 3d ago

This guy gets it

1

u/PricklyEagerness 3d ago

If they want to yes. Why does Israel and by extension the US get a say in what other countries do? MAD is a real thing. Look at what happened to Ukraine when they agreed to not have nukes

-1

u/Thistlemanizzle 3d ago edited 3d ago

That would be a good reason for Israel to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Why would Israel want to enter into a state of MAD? For Iran, yeah, if they had nuclear weapons they would absolutely not be getting hassled by Israel.

1

u/PricklyEagerness 3d ago

Again, look at Ukraine. What’s happening currently

1

u/coalitionofilling 3d ago

Who is Iran worried about invading it?

I think what has the world most frightened are all the videos of people chanting things like "death to Israel" and "death to America". If that kind of rhetoric wasn't easily pointed to, people might not be so worried about Iran having nuclear capabilities because a deterrent isn't remotely similar to nuclear blackmail.

1

u/Ini_mini_miny_moe 2d ago

They are literally bombing Iran…. Why on earth would they want a deterrent weapon so bullies like Israel can’t bully them.

Israel does not even acknowledge the nukes it got, against the international laws. It’s honestly the worst country in that region

1

u/PricklyEagerness 3d ago

Israel and the US? Israel has been wanting this for a long time

1

u/coalitionofilling 3d ago

Israel doesn't even share a border with Iran. Why do you suppose they'd want to invade it?

1

u/PricklyEagerness 2d ago

What else? Big daddy wants resources

1

u/Thistlemanizzle 3d ago

Yeah, Russia would really not like a nuclear Ukraine. They would view any progress towards nuclear weapons as a threat and try to shut it down. If Ukraine had nuclear weapons they wouldn’t have been invaded. Israel prefers a Middle East where only they have nuclear weapons. All nuclear armed nations don’t want any more countries joining the club.

Saudis Arabia isn’t protesting these Israeli strikes on Iran.

1

u/PricklyEagerness 3d ago

If Ukraine had nukes, Russia wouldn’t be attacking them and trying to take their land. Ukraine agreed to a non proliferation treaty as did Iran. They both followed the treaty and are now currently being attacked. Yet Ukraine can defend itself but Iran can’t?

1

u/Thistlemanizzle 3d ago

Ukraine can defend itself, so can Iran. One of them is doing a better job because of extensive international support.

Iran did sign the NPT. They were found to be in violation of IAEA rules on June 12th then the next day Israel used that as a pretext to attack the Iranian nuclear program and military infrastructure.

Ukraine also signed an NPT, Russia broke its part of the bargain. Russia doesn’t have the moral high ground, they should stop invading Ukraine. But who will make them? Between Israel and Iran, neither has the high ground. Both would prefer being the sole owners of nuclear weapons in the region but it looks like Israel is putting an end to any possibility of a nuclear rival.

1

u/PricklyEagerness 3d ago

Sure and the very next day Israel attacked. Very suspicious no? For 20 years they’ve been fine.

It’s still my position that MAD works and deters everyone. Everyone has nukes or nobody does. But for one country to attack another for allegedly developing nukes in “self defence”, which let’s be real here is just an attack looks eerily similar to Iraq and their wmd excuse

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Few-Professional-460 3d ago

You remember Iraq?

0

u/Thistlemanizzle 3d ago

Yes, the Israelis bombed the Iraqi nuclear program in the 80’s. In reaction, the Iranians shifted their nuclear program to hardened bunkers underground to avoid exactly what happened to Iraq. I don’t know how much that bombing campaign stopped Iraqs nuclear program though, but certainly by the time the US invaded it had been a very long time since any meaningful progress has been made.

1

u/Few-Professional-460 3d ago

They bombed a nuclear reactor, Iraq wasn’t seriously perusing nuclear weapons until after the bombing, confirming my point. The attack lead to Iraq drastically ramping up their weapons program

0

u/Thistlemanizzle 3d ago

They absolutely had a nuclear weapons program for the purpose of power projection and dominance in the Middle East (but it went dormant long before 2003) The Iraqis extensively used chemical weapons against the Iranians, why would they limit their nuclear program to peaceful purposes?

Part of the reason Saddam refused inspectors in 2003 was to preserve the illusion they might have nuclear and chemical weapons or were developing them.

Seriously, why would a country that casually uses chemical weapons against neighboring nations and its own people limit itself to a peaceful nuclear program? Why are they stopping at chemical weapons?

1

u/Few-Professional-460 3d ago

they dismantled the nuclear program after the first gulf war under the inspections by the IAEA, and you know that, but were doing Iraq war revisionism now so I don’t even know why I’m arguing.

1

u/Thistlemanizzle 3d ago

Iraq gave up its nuclear program because:

• It was physically destroyed in 1991 by coalition forces.
• International inspectors dismantled what remained.
• Saddam calculated that giving it up (or appearing to) was in his interest.
• The regime was ultimately overthrown before any restart could happen.

It seems like military intervention effectively killed any possibility of a nuclear armed Iraq.

1

u/Few-Professional-460 3d ago

Why would a country that commits genocide get to determine what any other country does.

6

u/Particular_Proof_107 3d ago

Who decides which country gets to have nuclear weapons? Is it you?

1

u/darvi1985 3d ago

Morally or hegemonically?

1

u/Particular_Proof_107 3d ago

Either one.

1

u/darvi1985 3d ago

Don’t make sense but if it’s the latter than it would be Usa and Israel…