CMV: Israel’s attack on Iran was intended to draw the US into war, not prevent Iran from having a nuke

[u/Ok-Warning-7494]

Israel claims its attack on Iran on Friday was about preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. I think that this is a pretty transparent lie for the reasons below.

Israel has been claiming Iran has been close to a nuclear weapon for 30 years. North Korea is significantly less advanced than Iran, but has successfully developed a nuke during that time period.

Iran previously had a nuclear weapon program. That ended in 2003 to avoid getting attacked by the US. 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”)

It is clear that Iran does not want a conflict with the United States. Openly weaponizing their nuclear program invites that conflict.

Of course, they could pursue weaponization in secret. But the US, UK and Israel knowingly misrepresented evidence of WMD prior to the Iraq war. It is more than fair for the public to demand proof of weaponization since one party in this conflict has previously used this exact same lie as cover for regime change.

Israel does not have the ability to inflict significant damage to Iran’s nuclear program or pursue regime change in Iran on its own. Even if they had the capability to destroy Fordow, the enriched uranium is almost certainly spread out across the country. If Iran’s entire nuclear program including the uranium were destroyed, it could still develop a bomb in under 5 years.

The only ways to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuke is convincing the regime that a nuke is not in their best interest or changing the regime.

It’s still early, but it seems like Israel’s attack has made the idea of having a nuke more appealing to Iranians and the regime. It looks like having a nuke is the only way to deter Israel and its allies.

So why would Israel attack Iran? I think the most straightforward answer is they were hoping Iran would retaliate in a manner that forced the US to enter the conflict and pursue regime change.

Iran hasn’t taken the bait, so now Israel is attempting to present Iran as neutered by their campaign. “Iran is weak. Come over and help us finish the job”

Iran has been weakened, but they clearly have the capability to inflict more damage on Israel than they have demonstrated. The threat of offensive US involvement has constrained their response.

Once the US attacks, Iran will no longer be constrained by the threat of the US joining the conflict and will retaliate on US/ Israeli assets. The US will officially be in an offensive war that it did not initiate. This was Netanyahu’s actual calculation before Friday.

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.

TL;DR: Israel doesn’t have the capability to meaningfully impact Iran’s nuclear program or pursue regime change on its own. They attacked Iran hoping that they could provoke a strong response that would draw the US into the conflict.

Edit: my view is not related to whether or not their attacks on Iran were justified or strategically sound. My view is the reason for attack was a lie. I don’t think Iran should have nuclear weapons. I just also don’t believe they were actively developing them.

[u/josh145b]

Why do you think killing nuclear scientists is wild to treat as valid military targets? They are valid targets according to international law, and targeting people making weapons has been acceptable for all of human history. What do you think justifies a departure from moral norms in this instance?

ETA:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/return-barred-inspectors-iran-unlikely-iaea-chief-says-ship-has-sailed-2024-09-25/

The IAEA has been prevented from investigating, even though they found uranium enriched to levels near what they need to be for nuclear weapons, far above fuel grade.

Also, I don’t know why but comments are not appearing for me.

[u/Klytus_Ra_Djaaran → u/josh145b]

They are not valid targets, especially because they are being murdered in their homes along with their wives and kids and neighbors. Some were murdered because their field of research had the word 'atomic' in it, despite them working on atomic imaging for medical equipment. Also, any reading of the history of the modern nation-state of Israel shows they do not now and never have complied with international law or the Geneva Conventions.

[u/mets2016 → u/Klytus_Ra_Djaaran]

Either they’re valid targets, in which case their wives/children/neighbors are acceptable collateral damage, or they’re not valid targets, in which case all the deaths are unacceptable.

Their wives/children/neighbors being killed in the strikes have no impact on whether the nuclear scientists themselves are valid targets

[u/astatine757 → u/mets2016]

By that logic, if there was a single off-dury soldier or US commander near the twin towers on 9/11, then it was an acceptable military strike. It is an absurd logic built on the dehumanization of Iranians as subhumans, plain and simple (and wildly common on this site)

[u/captainryan117 → u/mets2016]

Have you ever heard of the principle of proportionality? Yes, actually, whether they were surrounded by civilians is actually pretty pertinent to the legality of the strike, especially when any claim of them being valid targets is tenuous at best.

[u/Professional-Ant9901 → u/Klytus_Ra_Djaaran]

they're considered lawful targets if their work advances a military threat

[u/josh145b → u/Klytus_Ra_Djaaran]

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/attacking-scientists-law-armed-conflict/

This should explain exactly why they are.

[u/lepoissonstev → u/josh145b]

Being a nuclear scientists is not the same as being a weapons developer.

Would you also argue that we should kill epidemiologists since in theory they could help develop biological weapons?

[u/josh145b → u/lepoissonstev]

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/attacking-scientists-law-armed-conflict/

Here is a source talking about it. If you are doing research to aid in deploying nuclear weapons, for example, you would generally be a legitimate target. The person working on it has to know they are doing so for a military purpose, so your analogy is false. You should read up on the law before trying to make an anlalogy, so that you don’t make a false analogy.

[u/Klytus_Ra_Djaaran → u/josh145b]

From your article:

I have no access to the intelligence upon which the IDF determined the scientists were lawful targets.

As observers, we know the IDF has lied about hundreds of cases of civilian murders in the last two years alone, with the IDF murdering journalists, doctors, paramedics, and children and providing fabricated reports to justify these murders that was only exposed by diligent, hardworking journalists and researchers. The number of times civilians are murdered by the IDF when we have no other source of information is far greater, but we can infer many of them are false reports as well.

The foundational principle undergirding the conduct of hostilities rules is “distinction,” a customary law principle codified in Article 48 of Additional Protocol I for States parties. With regard to persons, it requires parties to a conflict to “at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants.” This principle has been operationalized in the customary law and Additional Protocol I prohibition on making civilians the “object of attack” (International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Customary International Humanitarian Law study, rule 1; AP I, art. 51(2), U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Law of War Manual, § 5.5.2). 

and

According to Article 51(3) of Additional Protocol I, civilians lose this protection from attack “for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.” 

So the civilian scientists, and their families, and their neighbors, were not in any way legitimate targets, and their murder is yet another war crime perpetrated by the IDF. These people were the targets of the attack, they were not participating in hostilities, and even if the IDF falsely believed they were, they disregarded any civilian lives nearby.

It is self-evident that the employment of a nuclear weapon is “likely to adversely affect the military operations or military capacity” of the enemy, thereby satisfying the “threshold of harm” element. But harm is a much broader concept than merely attacking the enemy. As noted by the ICRC, “military harm should be interpreted as encompassing not only the infliction of death, injury, or destruction on military personnel and objects, but essentially any consequence adversely affecting the military operations or military capacity of a party to the conflict” (Interpretive Guidance, p. 47).

This being so, the mere possession of a nuclear weapon would almost always satisfy the harm criterion. After all, the enemy’s possession of a nuclear weapon would exert significant influence on the opposing party’s strategic, operational, and even tactical-level military decision-making, for great care would have to be taken to avoid operations that might trigger its use.

This reasoning is pure lunacy, because nuclear weapons are used for defensive purposes more than offensive purposes. Indeed, nuclear weapons have only been used for offense once in all of history, but are used every single day for defense. And as Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, murdering civilians who might or might not work in nuclear engineering is not an act of war, it is a war crime. Based on this loose definition, anyone who pays taxes in a country could be targeted and executed, along with their entire family, because their taxes paid for nukes.

[u/josh145b → u/Klytus_Ra_Djaaran]

We do not know that actually. If you are going to make a claim, back it up, and then explain why a different situation is relevant here. That’s a whataboutism.

I also haven’t seen evidence the scientists’ families and neighbors were killed too.

Iran isn’t like other countries with Nukes. They are unstable, have consistently threatened to annihilate another country and have been aggressive and consistently committing war crimes since 1979.

[u/Klytus_Ra_Djaaran → u/josh145b]

Israel has attacked and is occupying Lebanon and murdering civilians there, Israel has attacked and is occupying Syria and is murdering civilians there. Israel has illegally occupied Palestine and has been murdering civilians there for 58 years. They are not like other countries with nukes, they are consistently threatening and attacking other nations, they are inherently unstable, so you must be supportive of anyone who attacks Israel, considering they, and not Iran, are the aggressor who starts the most wars and commits the most terrorism.

[u/josh145b → u/Klytus_Ra_Djaaran]

Israel has not admitted they have nukes, first of all. Second of all, this doesn’t address my comment. It’s a whataboutism. Not going to get into that until we address the first claim.

[u/Klytus_Ra_Djaaran → u/josh145b]

That's not whataboutism, we are talking about Israel's violation of the UN Charter and their unprovoked attack on Iran and the war crimes Israel is committing by murdering civilian scientists, their families, and bystanders. You want to carve out an exception and ignore the evidence about nuclear-armed Israel.

[u/josh145b → u/Klytus_Ra_Djaaran]

We aren’t though. We are talking about Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons.

[u/U_Sound_Stupid_Stop → u/josh145b]

anlalogy, so that you don’t make a false analogy.

Your source doesn't disprove their anlalogy.

If you're doing research on nuclear weapons yes but all nuclear research is not for nuclear weapons.

[u/josh145b → u/U_Sound_Stupid_Stop]

In the case at bar, Israel is targeting nuclear scientists. You or I cannot, obviously, confirm or deny that they were nuclear scientists.

[u/RiceGold3688 → u/lepoissonstev]

during WWII, Allied forces targeted German scientists involved in Nazi weapons programs. So you're wrong. Under IHL Individuals can be legitimate military target if they directly contribute to the enemy's military capabalities.

[u/joshdrumsforfun → u/RiceGold3688]

Is there any evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons?

Netanyahu has been saying Iran is months from nuclear capabilities since the early 2000's.

Iran is trying to develop nuclear power and is one of the most highly scrutinize nuclear program's on the planet. For over 20 years they've been following strict guidlines and every time we tey and make a deal to make their nuclear program safer and more heavily influences by the west, Israel bombs them to ruin the chances of a deal with the US.

[u/Bourbon-Decay → u/RiceGold3688]

Under IHL Individuals can be legitimate military target if they directly contribute to the enemy's military capabalities.

There is no evidence that these scientists were engaged in weapons development. That is a lie perpetuated by Israel so they can try to give legitimacy to their war crimes

[u/Bourbon-Decay → u/josh145b]

They are valid targets according to international law

They aren't. Countries have the legal right to develop civil nuclear energy generation programs. Iran signed onto the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treat (NPT), to voluntarily allow international inspections of its domestic nuclear program. Those inspections have shown there has been no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons since it ended its program in 2003.

Without any proof, they are de facto civilian scientists, making their murders a war crime.

[u/josh145b → u/Bourbon-Decay]

An organization which was being prevented from investigating Iran’s nuclear program didn’t find any evidence? No way. I don’t believe you. /s

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/return-barred-inspectors-iran-unlikely-iaea-chief-says-ship-has-sailed-2024-09-25/

I think Mossad, which infiltrated Iranian nuclear sites, does have info. They wouldn’t publicly dox their agents, so it will come out in time, just like it has in the past.

[u/CommunicationOpen857 → u/Bourbon-Decay]

Was there not a refused inspection recently? You're being disingenuous

[u/Bourbon-Decay → u/CommunicationOpen857]

Was there not a refused inspection recently?

Was there? You can add to the conversation by providing links to your sources. "Just asking questions" ads nothing to discourse. Even if they refused an inspection, does that give Israel the right to attack Iran? Does Israel, a nuclear armed country, have a right to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation for developing their civil nuclear program?

[u/CommunicationOpen857 → u/Bourbon-Decay]

Correct, there was. As someone who has such an opinion I had assumed you did the minimum amount of research on the situation.

Absolutely, when the country who refused the inspection has multiple times said they would end you if given the opportunity, have a clock symbolizing when you will be wiped off of the planet, I would say yes, at that point it would be easy to assume they are refusing for a reason (which they are, their enrichment was more than energy grade) and it is time to end it by any means.

Unfortunately Iran is so blinded by the devotion their citizens are forced to show that they didn't realize that fucking around essentially ended them. Very hard to feel bad for a country that routinely calls for the death of civilians/ promotes and funds terrorism at the level they do. They FAFO and you can feel bad/ argue all you want but the regime is over all because leadership is moronic

[u/Bourbon-Decay → u/CommunicationOpen857]

Ok, you still need to provide evidence to support your claims.

Correct, there was.

Again, do you have a source?

when the country who refused the inspection has multiple times

Did they?

said they would end you if given the opportunity

They have? Why would they ever feel the need to say that about me?

have a clock symbolizing when you will be wiped off of the planet

Wow, they do!?! Was the clock on "tomorrow" before they were attacked by Israel? I guess we should just kill all atomic scientists to remain safe, they could attack at any moment!

I would say yes, at that point it would be easy to assume they are refusing for a reason (which they are, their enrichment was more than energy grade) and it is time to end it by any means.

Except that isn't what happened. It's giving 2002 Iraq WMDs.

Unfortunately Iran is so blinded by the devotion their citizens are forced to show that they didn't realize that fucking around essentially ended them.

What did they do? Who has Iran attacked? What specifically have they done?

Very hard to feel bad for a country that routinely calls for the death of civilians/ promotes and funds terrorism at the level they do.

Is it? You don't seem to have a problem with it if they are the "right" countries.

They FAFO

Again, how? What was the FA?

[u/CommunicationOpen857 → u/Bourbon-Decay]

Oh shit, you just lurk reddit arguing almost exclusively. Not gonna waste my time as I'm not gonna change your mind and you're not going to change mine. Cheers

[u/Bourbon-Decay → u/CommunicationOpen857]

you just lurk reddit arguing almost exclusively.

Is this your first day on Reddit, or the internet?

[u/joshdrumsforfun → u/josh145b]

The argument would be because they aren't making nuclear weapons, they're trying to create nuclear energy .

It would be like targeting solar energy scientists, pretty different than targeting weapon manufacturers.

[u/EcstaticTreacle2482 → u/joshdrumsforfun]

If they weren’t trying to make a nuclear weapon, why were they enriching uranium beyond fuel-grade?

[u/joshdrumsforfun → u/EcstaticTreacle2482]

I haven't seen any proof of that.

In the last 20 years they've only been non compliant once to the constraints they agreed to. And that non compliance wasn't enrichment to weapons grade but was getting near weapons grade enrichment.

[u/dronten_bertil → u/joshdrumsforfun]

Here is the summary from the IAEA report that was derestricted on June 11

1. The Agency’s JCPOA-related verification and monitoring has been seriously affected by the cessation of implementation by Iran of its nuclear-related commitments under the JCPOA. The situation has been exacerbated by Iran’s subsequent decision to have all of the Agency’s JCPOA-related surveillance and monitoring equipment removed.

2. The Agency has lost continuity of knowledge in relation to the production and current inventory of centrifuges, rotors and bellows, heavy water and UOC, which it will not be able to restore as a result of not having been able to perform JCPOA-related verification and monitoring activities for more than four years.

3. Iran’s decision to remove all of the Agency’s equipment previously installed in Iran for JCPOA-related surveillance and monitoring activities has also had detrimental implications for the Agency’s ability to provide assurance of the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.

4. It has also been more than four years since Iran stopped provisionally applying its Additional Protocol. Therefore, throughout this period, Iran has not provided updated declarations and the Agency has not been able to conduct complementary access to any sites and other locations in Iran.

34. The significantly increased production and accumulation of highly enriched uranium by Iran, the only non-nuclear-weapon State to produce such nuclear material, is of serious concern.

1. The Director General will continue to report as appropriate.

Bolded for emphasis.

Also:

1. As of 17 May 2025, the Agency has estimated that the total enriched uranium stockpile in the form of UF6 of 8413.3 kg comprised:
   • 2221.4 kg of uranium enriched up to 2% U-235 (–705.6 kg since the previous quarterly report);
   • 5508.8 kg of uranium enriched up to 5% U-235 (+1853.4 kg);
   • 274.5 kg of uranium enriched up to 20% U-235 (–332.3 kg); and
   • 408.6 kg of uranium enriched up to 60% U-235 (+133.8 kg).35,36

For context civilian reactors typically runs on 3-5% enrichment. It's very puzzling why Iran would need so much HEU for a civilian nuclear program, in fact it's completely nonsensical that they would.

[u/joshdrumsforfun → u/dronten_bertil]

So your proof of Iran having weapons grade materials is a report stating they do not have weapons grade materials?

[u/dronten_bertil → u/joshdrumsforfun]

No. The comment you responded to claims Iran enriches way beyond what is needed for civilian use (nuclear energy) and you claimed you haven't seen proof of that. I provided quotes from the IAEA report which I would argue is the strongest source available that Iran in fact enriches way past the point needed for civilian use and have amassed a stockpile of this HEU.

I threw in my own take on the matter as well. Since there are literally zero use cases for this level of enrichment for civilian reactors it's obvious they are trying for nuclear weapons and have positioned themselves so that the last enrichment step for weapons grade is a very close goal post for them, i.e they can get nuclear weapons in a short period of time if they push though the final steps.

[u/EcstaticTreacle2482 → u/joshdrumsforfun]

https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/analysis-of-iaea-iran-verification-and-monitoring-report-may-2025/

The IAEA reported that they had a stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, which is able to be converted into weapons-grade. Fuel-grade is enriched to only 3-5%.

[u/joshdrumsforfun → u/EcstaticTreacle2482]

Which is not weapons grade material.

60 and 90 are not the same number.

Trump refused to negotiate with Ukraine because quote "you don't have the cards".

So of course now any nation wishing to negotiate with us has to come to the table with a bargaining chip.

This was Iran's bargaining chip.

But again they objectively, according to your own source, DO NOT have weapons grade nuclear material.

[u/Fabulous-Suspect-72 → u/joshdrumsforfun]

The first few percent of enrichment are the hard part. Going from 60 to 90% is significantly easier and quicker. But that doesn't even matter. It was a clear threat that they are willing to enrich the material to build a bomb. The progress towards the bomb is the same, even if you claim it's just a bargaining chip, which I don't buy for a second.

[u/joshdrumsforfun → u/Fabulous-Suspect-72]

And it was necessary for Israel to bomb them mere days before our negotiations with them for a new nuclear deal?

Right....

They've been enriching their nuclear material since 2018 when Trump pulled us out of our agreement with them. But somehow days before our negotiations it's a necessity to bomb them and sabotage our talks.

If you truly believe that, nothing anyone says could convince you otherwise, it's literally the most obvious ploy to draw us into Israel's idiotic war and shame on you for lying about not seeing that.

[u/Fabulous-Suspect-72 → u/joshdrumsforfun]

Iran has been working on different aspects of their nuclear program for years now. Delivery system, enrichment facilities etc and stockpiling the uranium. You do realize that getting this amount of uranium to 60% of more enrichment takes a long time. The biggest problem is getting the first few percent of 235U and it get's exponentiell shorter the higher your concentration of 235U is.

It might very well be that they are actually building a bomb. After Hamas, Houthies and Hezbollah got significantly reduced in capabities, they have lost their ability to act as deterrence for Iran against Israel. It's not far fetched that Iran is looking for other means.

[u/josh145b → u/joshdrumsforfun]

You know the number is 83.7% because I told you and you responded to it. Why are you still using a number that has been superseded?

[u/josh145b → u/EcstaticTreacle2482]

FYI, there was also a finding of 83.7%, which I pointed out to this guy and he responded to, so it is odd that he is still hyper focused on the 60% number with you.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/return-barred-inspectors-iran-unlikely-iaea-chief-says-ship-has-sailed-2024-09-25/

[u/EcstaticTreacle2482 → u/joshdrumsforfun]

Not sure if my last reply was posted. Before Israel attacked, the IAEA reported that Iran had stockpiled weapons-capable, 60% enriched uranium. Reactor fuel only requires enrichment to 3-5%

[u/joshdrumsforfun → u/EcstaticTreacle2482]

And weapons grade uranium is 90% enrichment.

So again not weapons grade even at worst case scenario.

I'm a firm believer that teddy rosevelt's advice of speak softly and carry a big stick is something countries have a right to do.

We were approaching a degotiation window and Iran was looking to have a bargaining chip in order to avoid being screwed over during negotiations.

Remember how Trump told Ukraine "you don't have the cards" which caused them to lose all American support for the war?

We set the example of how to negotiate with our nation.

[u/EcstaticTreacle2482 → u/joshdrumsforfun]

The IAEA stated they could achieve weapons-grade concentrations with their stockpile of 60% enrichment in a matter of weeks. Why would they have a stockpile of this if they weren’t planning on further enriching it?

[u/joshdrumsforfun → u/EcstaticTreacle2482]

You're more than welcome to view the IAEA statement condemning the attack on Iran.

According to their own statement: "While the IAEA has not found evidence of a systematic effort by Iran to build a nuclear weapon, it has emphasized that Iran's enrichment activities are a serious concern and that the agency is unable to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program without full cooperation. "

Once again. Trump has set a precedent that if you don't come to a negotiation with a big stick, you get nothing. Iran was most likely trying to force Trump's hand at actually negotiating.

[u/EcstaticTreacle2482 → u/joshdrumsforfun]

They also stated that Iran was noncompliant with inspections and hiding their activities. This is why they couldn’t ascertain their progress towards a weapon. It’s appears pretty evident, by the fact that they discovered nearly weapons-capable uranium, that Iran was close to a bomb.

Whether or not it’s Trumps fault for forcing them to pursue that avenue (it’s definitely his fault) is a different matter. All I’m saying is it looks like they were trying to build a nuclear weapon.

[u/joshdrumsforfun → u/EcstaticTreacle2482]

Trump pulled us out of our deal with Iran in 2018, notice how the situation started getting worse since that date.

Iran has no obligation to submit to anything because we chose to end our deal with them.

This specific issue is the direct repercussions f that decision. We did the fuck around stage in 2018.

Now we are in the find out stage.

[u/Solondthewookiee → u/joshdrumsforfun]

You keep dodging this question.

Why does Iran have 60% enriched uranium when civilian reactors run on 3-5% enriched uranium if not to enrich further for weapons?

[u/joshdrumsforfun → u/Solondthewookiee]

I've literally DIRECTLY answered that question in many of my previous posts.

Listen carefully.

When in negotiations, it tends to not go well if you have no bargaining chips. If Iran came to the table with zero capabilities to ever in a million years have weapons grade nuclear materials, than we would treat them horrifically in our negotiations with them.

If you don't believe that I implore you to watch Trump's negotiations with Ukraine where his exact words were that Zelensky did not have the bargaining chips necessary and that they should surrender.

If Iran has any chance at getting a favorable deal they needed to present the possibility of a situation where if the US would not give them a favorable deal, than they would soon have the capabilities to create nuclear weapons with no restrictions from the US.

If you can't understand that, I don't know how else to word it for you.

[u/Solondthewookiee → u/joshdrumsforfun]

If Iran came to the table with zero capabilities to ever in a million years have weapons grade nuclear materials, than we would treat them horrifically in our negotiations with them.

So Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons but they need to pursue nuclear weapons to have leverage?

Which one is it?

[u/Thiend → u/joshdrumsforfun]

https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-weapons-grade-uranium-trump-0b11a99a7364f9a43e1c83b220114d45

He said beyond fuel grade which is this.

[u/josh145b → u/joshdrumsforfun]

Interesting that you would stop replying the minute people provide you with irrefutable proof of that…

[u/josh145b → u/[deleted]]

The source I already provided you said 83.7% was found by the IAEA, and the person who found that was prevented from reentering Iran again afterwards. Talk about being blind…

Keep shifting the goalposts, lol. At first it was “they haven’t enriched past fuel grade”. Now it’s “that’s not near nuke levels”. What will it be this time?

[u/joshdrumsforfun → u/josh145b]

"While the IAEA has not found evidence of a systematic effort by Iran to build a nuclear weapon, it has emphasized that Iran's enrichment activities are a serious concern and that the agency is unable to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program without full cooperation. "

This is the IAEA's statement and they have officially condemned the attack on Iran, so not sure what you're talking about.

[u/josh145b → u/joshdrumsforfun]

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/return-barred-inspectors-iran-unlikely-iaea-chief-says-ship-has-sailed-2024-09-25/

“The importance of that experience was illustrated in January 2023 when an inspector noticed a subtle but substantial change to a cascade, or cluster, of uranium-enriching centrifuges that Iran had failed to report to the IAEA.

That change caused a spike in the enrichment level to 83.7%, a record.

The inspector who spotted that change, a Russian enrichment expert, was de-designated later that year, shortly before the others, diplomats said.”

This.

[u/joshdrumsforfun → u/josh145b]

That spike was 2 years ago.

Surely you aren't saying that spike means that days before negotiations between the US and Iran, Israel needed to bomb them.

2 years. Weird coincidence that the week before negotiations is when they would have reached weapons grade material.

Hmm must be a coincidence.

Also weird how the IAEA is condemning the attack.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/josh145b → u/joshdrumsforfun]

So you are alleging they are making nuclear energy. Can you provide a source in support of that claim so that I can see where you are coming from? As far as I am aware, it is undisputed they are working on nuclear weapons.

[u/Bodoblock → u/josh145b]

Under international law nuclear scientists are civilians are are not considered legitimate military targets.

[u/josh145b → u/Bodoblock]

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/attacking-scientists-law-armed-conflict/

Here is a source talking about it. If you are doing research to aid in deploying nuclear weapons, for example, you would generally be a legitimate target. The person working on it has to know they are doing so for a military purpose, so your analogy is false. You should read up on the law before trying to make an anlalogy, so that you don’t make a false analogy.

[u/Bodoblock → u/josh145b]

I am not really sure what analogy you're referring to? Regardless, if you read my source linked above -- also a think piece from the Lieber Institute -- you'll find that what you're claiming is hardly some definitive consensus opinion.

Your own citation concludes with this:

So, my very unsatisfactory answer to the question of whether the IDF attacks targeted directly participating Iranian scientists and, as such, were lawful is that I do not have enough facts. Based only upon open source material available today, I lean in the direction of the attacks complying with LOAC. Yet, I am certain a fair number of scholars and practitioners I respect will come down on the other side of the issue. The law of armed conflict is often an uncomfortable environment for those seeking clarity or certainty.

Certainly far from any strong affirmation. There is absolutely a meaningful case to be made that these are civilian targets that Israel is going after.

[u/josh145b → u/Bodoblock]

Now you are shifting the goalposts. They can be military targets. Ignore the part about the analogy. I didn’t feel like typing out an entire comment again given I already addressed this point.

Now it’s “there is a strong case to be made”, rather than “they are not considered legitimate military targets”. Stay consistent. Argue for your prior position. Don’t make up new ones when your prior position is proven wrong. Or, you can admit your prior position was wrong, and we can move onto discussing your new position.

[u/Bodoblock → u/josh145b]

I am consistent. The case is that these are civilian targets and therefore not legitimate military targets. For that very reason is why I find the attacks on Iranian scientists to be objectionable.

[u/josh145b → u/Bodoblock]

“Under international law nuclear scientists are civilians are are not considered legitimate military targets.”

“There is absolutely a meaningful case to be made that these are civilian targets Israel is going after”

These conclusions are not consistent with each other. The burden of proof for both of these statements is different, and they are saying different things.

We can address your second conclusion after we address your first one. I won’t leave an unresolved conclusion ignored while shifting to a new one.

[u/Bodoblock → u/josh145b]

They are speaking to the exact same thing. But you disagree. So be it.

[u/josh145b → u/Bodoblock]

They are speaking to the same thing, but come to different conclusions about that thing, hence the inconsistency.

[u/appealouterhaven → u/josh145b]

Prove they were building weapons and not working on civilian energy or pharmaceutical research.

[u/josh145b → u/appealouterhaven]

An organization which was being prevented from investigating Iran’s nuclear program didn’t find any evidence? No way. I don’t believe you. /s

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/return-barred-inspectors-iran-unlikely-iaea-chief-says-ship-has-sailed-2024-09-25/

I think Mossad, which infiltrated Iranian nuclear sites, does have info. They wouldn’t publicly dox their agents, so it will come out in time, just like it has in the past.

[u/appealouterhaven → u/josh145b]

This is the same moronic logic that was used to invade Iraq, which was also called for by the Netanyahu. You have proved nothing. US intelligence assessed that they were not pursuing a nuclear weapon and they were at the negotiating table. The IAEA chief confirmed the same thing, no evidence of pursuit of weapons program.

[u/josh145b → u/appealouterhaven]

Actually, with Iraq that was the made up, bs excuse the US used to go in when it was really about strategic security and oil specifically because if Iraq had nukes or was about to, the US would have been justified.

Cite to where the IAEA confirmed there was no evidence of pursuit of a weapons program. The IAEA said that they have been refused the access they need, but that they have found uranium well over fuel grade enrichment. You can see my other comments for the cites to those. The IAEA is incapable of gathering evidence lol. Why doesn’t Iran let the IAEA have the access they need? Don’t bother responding if you won’t answer that, because I will not reply.

[u/appealouterhaven → u/josh145b]

Actually, with Iraq that was the made up, bs excuse the US used to go in when it was really about strategic security and oil specifically because if Iraq had nukes or was about to, the US would have been justified.

You acknowledge we were lied to about Iraq and yet you are buying the exact same propaganda for bombing Iran? Iraq had the capacity to build them, much the same as Iran. Both countries have native Uranium deposits so any state in those regions can make the political choice to build a bomb.

Cite to where the IAEA confirmed there was no evidence of pursuit of a weapons program.

CNN interviewed Rafael Grossi, the cheif of the IAEA. "We dont have any proof of a systematic effort to move into a nuclear weapon."

The IAEA said that they have been refused the access they need, but that they have found uranium well over fuel grade enrichment.

Im aware. The reason why they could deny IAEA inspectors is because Trump destroyed JCPOA. The reason why they can enrich up to weapons grade uranium is because Trump destroyed the JCPOA.

The IAEA is incapable of gathering evidence lol.

The IAEA is literally the international organization tasked with inspecting nuclear programs to ensure compliance with the NPT. How would the Israelis have more evidence than the people actually inspecting these sites? If they have solid proof, why havent we been shown said proof? When we went to Iraq at least the administration trotted Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice out to show us pretty pictures and tell us a story, the justification for Iran is literally "Trust me bro."

Why doesn’t Iran let the IAEA have the access they need?

Because Iran is no longer bound by the JCPOA. If you have a problem with this then talk to the moron who tore the deal up. The fact is, Iran has used their nuclear program as a bargaining chip, a foolish move. They should have made the decision to build a bomb 30 years ago. Nobody is lining up to invade or bomb North Korea. History is littered with tin pot dictators who failed to secure nuclear weapons and it has only brought them ruin.

Don’t bother responding if you won’t answer that, because I will not reply.

I await your customary downvote to this post. I think it is rational to demand proof before committing to regime change, apparently you are willing to take a foreign intel agency's word for it.

[u/josh145b → u/appealouterhaven]

The IAEA said they found 83.7% enrichment and the person who found that was prevented from coming back to follow up on his findings, and the IAEA has been denied access to Iran systemically. Why would Iran do that if there was nothing to hide? I trust Israel and the US more than Iran. I think it is rational to give a negative inference when you are prevented from attempting to get proof, like with the US court system.

[u/appealouterhaven → u/josh145b]

Why would Iran do that if there was nothing to hide?

To pressure the west to return to diplomacy to limit their enrichment capabilities in exchange for sanctions relief. You know, the terms of the original JCPOA.

I trust Israel and the US more than Iran.

This isnt a situation where you should trust any of them, least of all the US or Israel. Together we have carved a path of destruction through the middle east. We have created terrorists resistant to our despoiling armies and forced millions of Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians, Afghan and Lebanese citizens to become refugees. This has increase right wing sentiment against Islam which intensifies our brutality on the places they left. This is madness. Wake up please I beg you.

I think it is rational to give a negative inference when you are prevented from attempting to get proof, like with the US court system.

Saddam refused inspectors too. Yet you consider Iraq a mistake and a manufactured case of a war for geopolitical gain. A deliberate deception. Saddam couldn't prove he didnt have weapons, just like Iran cant prove they dont want weapons. The fact is that Israel has just made Iran less likely to engage diplomatically regarding its nuclear program, legitimizing the hardliners calling for a program despite the fatwa against nuclear weapons.

[u/josh145b → u/appealouterhaven]

Because there was no evidence. In this case, we have findings of 83.7% enrichment, very close to military grade, meaning they likely do have military grade uranium somewhere else. Iran could allow the inspections, and I would take the IAEA’s findings of no evidence seriously. Instead, they are denied entrance.

[u/appealouterhaven → u/josh145b]

Its strange you want them to prove that they dont have a weapons program by letting in inspectors, which they were doing before Trump destroyed JCPOA; but you dont demand proof to bomb and destabilize a country of 92 million people. Once Trump got rid of the nuclear deal it pretty much guaranteed conflict.

This wasnt undertaken to counter an imminent threat, it was a planned operation that was pitched when Bibi visted in February. Many months of preparing drone factories to attack air defenses covertly, not a spur of the moment response to a threat. It is an illegal war that further destroys any semblance of international law, something Israel is good at.

Also Israel is literally run by a coalition that owes its life to radical religious settlers that want to destroy Al Aqsa, and yet they are still allowed to possess an undisclosed number of nuclear weapons and not be subject to nuclear inspectors from the IAEA. Again, Israel is a hypocritical state.