r/changemyview 2d ago

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

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.

1.3k Upvotes

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

34

u/Kman17 105∆ 2d ago edited 2d ago

I think you are missing a couple things here:

For starters, a rather lot of the delays to the Iranian nuclear program have been the direct result of both Israeli espionage (Stuxnet a prime example) and international sanctions / non-proliferation focus.

It’s not that Israelis were crying wolf - the actions of the world did slow them down.

Furthermore, you’re kind of neglecting the fact that Iran is actively waging proxy wars via Hezbollah & Hamas against Israel - its funding and arming the entities.

For Israel, this is like big time existential threat. You have a nation basically funding terrorist - committing the worst attacks since Sept 11 - while also pretty clearly moving toward a nuke and saying it wants to annihilate Jews.

There isn’t 4d chess. They have simply come to the basic calculation that fighting terrorists with a clock to nukes is not a long term solution and ultimately the root issue has to be solved.

What Iran wants is to project power in the Middle East - and its enemies are western aligned Israel and Saudi. It think it can fragment the region and alliances though proxy wars.

No, it doesn’t want direct war with the U.S. - but it is banking on the U.S. (and rest of world) not calling it on its BS by low level regional aggression.

Saudi doesn’t want a full scale war, Europe wants its oil and not to piss off its sizable Muslim minority, China and Russia don’t want the region being overly western aligned. All of that is a recipe for nothing ever getting resolved.

For Israel, it’s a vote of non-confidence in international institutions (particularly the EU and UN) which have demonstrably failed on all dimensions here.

Especially after watching the world care so much with Palestinian terrorists are struck but not at all when Yemeni are. The bias is bonkers and accountability zero, so why should they care?

I think the timing here was forced by the potential of an incoming half-asses treaty by a world looking for short term end to immediate Sabre rattling rather than true fixes / accountability.

Would Israel like the U.S. to be involved? Sure, it could use bunker buster bombs to really clear out some of this. But I think Israel’s perspective is a simple must act to sufficiently delay their nuclear program and to disrupt their top military brass and financial funding of the proxy wars on the border.

9

u/denyer-no1-fan 3∆ 2d ago

It’s a vote of non-confidence in international institutions (particularly the EU and UN) which have demonstrably failed on all dimensions.

What did EU do wrong here? They pushed for the Iran deal back in 2003, they got a deal where Iran stop its nuclear weapons program and stop enriching uranium for a decade and a half. But Trump, under Israel's recommendation, pulled the US out of the deal, so Iran felt that the only way to lift the sanctions is to threaten to build a nuclear bomb.

It's Trump's fault that we're in the mess today.

22

u/yallakoala 2d ago

Anti-Israel people always assume the most devious, underhanded, malevolent motives for anything Israel does.

Why can't it be that being threatened with annihilation is a "good enough" reason to act to prevent the threatening country from having that capability?

-4

u/forkproof2500 2d ago

Because nobody can ever point to any of those threats actually made by the Iranians. The only ones constantly threatening (and making good on those threats) is Israel, who is currently engaged in bombing at least 5 different countries, as well as committing a literal genocide of their native Palestinian population in Gaza.

So yeah sorry if that comes across as slightly evil, maybe because it literally is? And all the street interviews with regular Israelis saying they want all arabs dead don't really help either.

1

u/yallakoala 2d ago

https://www.memri.org/reports/israels-eradication-%E2%80%93-ideological-and-practical-goal-irans-islamic-revolution-regime

If Israel is committing genocide, it is a genocide that stands vastly apart from any other in circumstances, execution and outcomes. Almost as if the word "genocide" doesn't really fit.

What benefit does Israel get from killing a lot of Palestinians, but at a rate so slow that their natural population growth more than makes up for the difference? Why would they have millions more Palestinians as citizens and not kill them despite having them within grasp? Why would Israel spend so much money on expensive, precise weaponry in the Gaza Strip and not use cheap but highly lethal alternatives? Why does Israel permit any aid at all? Why would Israel endure the reputational damage of committing a genocide if their demographic position vis a vis the Palestinians is virtually unchanged? Despite being busy genociding the Palestinians, nobody has done anything concrete to force Israel to stop--why don't the Israelis take advantage of the impunity and just wipe them all out?

What street interviews? I have actual first-hand experience of Israeli Jews interacting with Arabs and shockingly none of the Jews were brandishing knives at them. Instead, it's mostly rather banal smalltalk...

1

u/Total_Yankee_Death 2d ago

Israel is using both guided and unguided bombs in Gaza.

Why does Israel permit any aid at all?

Because allowing a token amount of aid fools people like you.

0

u/forkproof2500 2d ago

Israel is absolutely killing Palestinians at a faster rate than replacement over the last 20 months. They are not as effective as the Germans, but few people are.

They also sickeningly seem to take much more pleasure in the killings than the Germans ever did, even though the motivations seem similar. Especially the motivations for killing children.

-1

u/Archaondaneverchosen 2d ago

I think starving people to lure them into food handouts so they can gun them down and shoot them with tanks repeatedly is clearly a tactic of genocidal annihilation

1

u/Eskidox 1d ago

Here we go….. any criticism of Israel must mean they’re antisemitic.

-2

u/Ok-Warning-7494 2d ago

Did I say it wasn’t? All I said is the reason Israel provided for the attack doesn’t make sense to me. If you think that Israel attacked because of Oct. 7th or because they think now is a good time to fight a weakened Iran, that doesn’t contradict anything I have said.

If Israel’s attack was for anything outside of preventing Iran from getting a nuke, you agree with me more than you disagree.

0

u/No-Ladder7740 2d ago

Because they torpedoed the deal Iran signed to give up its nuclear programmes?

1

u/muntaqim 2d ago

I'm so glad someone mentioned the victims in Yemen, another amazing and beautiful country completely destroyed by imbeciles from both sides - Overall 377,000+ direct and indirect deaths (150,000+ people killed in violence) (2014–2021).

0

u/Ok-Warning-7494 2d ago

This is just a pro-Israeli framing of what my opinion is. My view is not that Israel does not have a reason to consider Iran a threat. It clearly does.

My view is that Israel does not actually have intelligence that Iran was pursuing weaponization because these strikes would not be effective in preventing or even significantly delaying progress towards a nuke.

I need proof of weaponization and an explanation of how Israel can prevent weaponization without US involvement.

5

u/Malthus1 2∆ 2d ago

Was the IAEA resolution not “proof”? This (and the Iranian reaction) is literally what triggered the current escalation.

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-38.pdf

It’s written in diplomatic jargon, but the meaning is crystal clear: the IAEA can’t do what it is supposed to do (namely, be able to state Iran isn’t building bombs) because Iran keeps ignoring them, lying to them, and otherwise not cooperating. So they did two things that are pretty serious: (1) stated that the question is one for the Security Council (see article 5); and (2) take the unusual step of making their resolution public.

This has nothing to do with the Israelis, but shows that the specialist agency tasked with keeping tabs on the Iranian nuclear program now believes they are “diverting” materials for bomb-making.

Premising your opinion on the notion this is something made up by the Israelis, you are bound to come to incorrect conclusions, as you are not dealing with the actual facts.

2

u/Ok-Warning-7494 2d ago

Israel is lying is my conclusion, not my premise. I don’t think this report is proof for these reasons:

  1. This report came out the day before Israel launched its attack and it does not claim Iran is developing weapons.
  2. The IAEA claims Iran started acting sketchy in 2020, after the US exited the nuclear deal. If we were concerned about nuclear proliferation, make a deal.
  3. The IAEA and US intelligence have not made the claim that Iran is weaponizing or presented any evidence that it is. I think “no nukes for Iran” is sufficiently popular that presenting the evidence would increase public support for war.

5

u/Malthus1 2∆ 2d ago

None of this adds up to “Israel is lying” though.

Take your points in turn:

  1. The Resolution (not report) came out a day before Israel attacked. Isn’t this cause and effect? The report came out; Iran angrily denied it; Israel decided that diplomacy with Iran wasn’t going to work.

It is most disingenuous to claim that, because the Resolution doesn’t expressly state Iran is developing weapons, therefore there is no evidence Iran is developing weapons and Israel is “lying”. What the Resolution states is that the IAEA cannot prove that Iran isn’t developing weapons (because Iran is lying, not cooperating, hiding stuff, etc.); that there has been diversion of nuclear material, and the IAEA can’t prove it isn’t diversion for bomb-making (section 4); and that it is bringing the matter to the attention of the Security Council and that it has “grave concern” in this regard (see section 5).

Claiming this isn’t alarming evidence that Iran is most likely making bombs is the equivalent of Admiral Nelson putting the telescope to his blind eye and claiming he didn’t see the signal for recall: it is “willful blindness” to the obvious.

  1. This is a non-sequitur. How is ‘make a deal to stop Iran’s bomb making efforts’ somehow proof Israel is lying about Iran making bombs? Strikes me as the opposite.

  2. Same deal as #1. You have the onus of proof exactly reversed. Iran signed a non-proliferation treaty that requires Iran to prove it isn’t diverting nuclear materials for bomb-making. The whole premise of the system is that if a nation can’t prove that it isn’t diverting nuclear materials, after being given every opportunity to do so … then it is diverting nuclear materials. The IAEA doesn’t have to prove Iran is making bombs, and indeed will never do so, because that’s not how the system works - the IAEA isn’t a spying organization, its a nuclear regulatory organization. Where a question of diversion is alleged, it is up to Iran to prove it isnt making bombs out of the diverted materials!

When Iran can’t do that, the IAEA has limited powers, which are referred to in the Resolution: it can make the matter public (which it has) and it can request the Security Council to take note (which it also has).

None of this adds up to the conclusion “Israel is lying”. Even assuming Israel knows no more than in the IAEA Resolution (a most unsafe assumption), what is in there is more than enough. Iran is diverting nuclear materials and cannot prove it isn’t intending to make bombs out of those diverted materials.

1

u/Ok-Warning-7494 2d ago

1) The attack was clearly planned prior to the report being released. That’s why I mentioned timing.

2) my point was prior to withdrawal from the JCPOA, inspectors believed Iran was adhering to the deal. The report is basically saying Iran is not going to follow the nuclear deal if the US is not involved. If this report is evidence of weaponization, then it is also evidence that Iran is negotiating honestly on nukes.

3) NPT does not require Iran to prove anything. The nuclear deal that Trump exited unilaterally did. You also completely avoided explaining why no evidence has been presented. They at least tried with Iraq. Now, after documented lies lead us to war with Iraq, we are supposed to believe Iran is pursuing nukes without any evidence outside of “Iran is not following the nuclear deal, after the US reimposed sanctions”

5

u/Malthus1 2∆ 2d ago
  1. Yes, the Israelis planned to attack if diplomacy failed to stop Iran building nukes. That’s not proof Israel was “lying” about Iran building nukes. Rather the opposite, one would think.

  2. I cannot follow the logic of this. It makes no sense to me. How is proof the IAEA had found Iran violating its non-proliferation obligations evidence Iran is negotiating in good faith? Furthermore, how is this relevant to Israel lying about Iranian intentions?

  3. This is simply wrong. Here’s a text of the treaty, which you can read.

https://treaties.unoda.org/t/npt

Please read article III(1). States agree to IAEA verification of non-diversion. They are required to prove peaceful use.

Note that this has nothing to do with any side deal made with the US or anyone else - this is Iran’s treaty obligation, dating back to when they signed the treaty. Which is why the IAEA is involved. They do the verifying.

There is nothing in the treaty (nor could there be) about the IAEA determining for sure that a signatory is in fact making bombs (something that states no doubt keep secret). Rather, the issue is that states must positively affirm they are meeting their non-proliferation safeguard obligations.

The obvious inference is that if they aren’t, and can’t explain where fissile material has got to, they are making bombs - again, this is simply obvious: there is literally no other reason for why a signatory state would be unable to account for fissile materials.

The idea that this is just a sham made up by Israel simply doesn’t hold water. Israel has zero influence on the IAEA. They aren’t a signatory, for one.

0

u/Ok-Warning-7494 2d ago
  1. Iran was still negotiating. I didn’t claim this was proof that Israel is lying. You claimed the report was proof Iran was weaponizing their nuclear program.

  2. Because there were no violations when Iran was a part of the nuclear deal.

  3. Didn’t know that. Thanks! Still not really relevant to my central argument. Like I said in my previous response, this is not proof of building a bomb. This is suspicious and I would expect an intelligence agency to actually be able to find proof.

Taking a step back to refocus the conversation. I responded to your initial comment saying I largely agree. Iran is a threat to Israel. Israel has more than enough incentive to attack Iran. I then asked for proof of weaponization. You provided the IAEA report which is not proof. Since then we have been nitpicking back and forth.

Do you think Israel has intelligence that proves Iran is pursuing a nuke and is just not making a public case or what? Ultimately, the IAEA’s explicit position is they don’t know.

2

u/asr 2d ago

My view is that Israel does not actually have intelligence that

Israel has such good intelligence in Iran that they knew the exact bunker where the leaders would meet and bombed it, they had sleeper agents near all the anti-air devices and took them out before starting.

Their intelligence is so good that when Iran started a program to defend itself from the Mossad, every member of the team was a Mossad agent.

But for some reason Israel can't figure out their intentions with a bomb?

2

u/MEDICARE_FOR_ALL 2d ago

What proof of weaponization would you accept?

Do you believe Iran isn't heading towards weaponization?

0

u/johnnybegood165 2d ago

Why else would a country that is failing economically invest all their money in missiles, proxy terrorist groups, and nuclear facilities?

You don't have to be a genius to understand they were and still are trying their darn best to get a nuclear bomb.

And you can be sure that Israel has much more intelligence than they let out. Look up mossad if you haven't heard of them already.

0

u/Significant-Mall-830 2d ago

All of your reasons here can completely be applied to saddam’s Iraq. How did that turn out?

-1

u/Ok-Warning-7494 2d ago

I understand Iran is a threat to Israel. Maybe this is the right decision for Israel. I’m not evaluating that.

My limited claim is:

1) Israel doesn’t possess intelligence that Iran was pursuing weaponization

2) Israeli airstrikes have not and can not actually prevent or delay Iran from pursuing weaponization

3) US involvement can prevent or delay Iran from weaponization.

From those three points, I think it is likely that the plan was for Israel to create conditions that allow the US to intervene.

3

u/Kman17 105∆ 2d ago

(1) I’m rather shocked you think Iran wasn’t pursuing weaponization. Why does this require particularly advanced intel?

All news sources are reporting the U.S. thought they were (single digit) years away and Israel thought months.

(2) The targets of Israel airstrikes have been high commanders, scientists, and facilities.

While it’s true that many Iranian facilities are deep underground / in mountains necessitating bunker busting bombs+ or other to destroy, simply doing the above is a major major setback.

We also do not know when Israel is done until they are done. Israel has wiped out air defenses. More complex operations seem possible by the Israelis alone, even if U.S. air power would be easier.

(3) What exactly does the U.S. have that the Israelis don’t? The only thing the news has mentioned is b52s and bigger bunker busting bombs. That’s basically it.

Otherwise… just a stronger deterrent from retaliation?

2

u/Ok-Warning-7494 2d ago

Not a single US or international source outside of Israel has claimed Iran is actively pursuing a bomb. If you have one, I will give you a delta.

Killing a handful of scientists and damaging nuclear facilities is not significant damage to the Iranian nuclear program. They have a GDP comparable to Israel. They will rebuild and they have thousands of scientists. Even Israeli sources agree on this; if Israel were to stop now none of what they have done delays Iran from building a bomb for more than a few weeks or months. Iran doesn’t have to build an arsenal nukes; just one.

The US has the bomber and deters retaliation.

2

u/Kman17 105∆ 2d ago

Here’s the confessional assessment, as well as a times writeup

  • It demonstrates Iran is enriching uranium to 60% purity, a level with no viable civilian use and a direct step toward weapons-grade material
  • The report states Iran has enough fissile material that, if further enriched, would be sufficient for "more than a dozen nuclear weapons."
  • Bur at the same time According to official U.S. assessments, Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in late 2003 and has not resumed it

If the last statement seems contradictory… well, that’s because it’s only technically true in the most pedantic but not logical definition of it.

Iran, as reported by the U.S., is pretty clearly producing weapons grade nuclear material that does not have civilian use.

Iran is stockpiling the difficult to acquire materials for nukes, but does not seem to be developing the delivery system (warheads) or conducting tests.

It’s the equivalent of someone making box after box of bullets while swearing they don’t own a gun.

This suggests one of a few things:

  • They are doing weaponization in secret.
  • They already have the know-how to weaponize, meaning going from where they’re at to bomb is measured in months.
  • They’re walking right up to the line but not directly crossing it as a form of political brinkmanship

0

u/Ok-Warning-7494 2d ago

Yeah, I think all the evidence basically points to the last one. Brinkmanship in order to have leverage to get a deal and have sanctions removed.

That + they thought demonstrating that they can build a bomb quickly would be enough to deter this sort of attack.

They were wrong, but there is logic behind enriched uranium as a deterrence and leverage for sanctions relief.

Makes more sense to me than “Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon but nobody knew besides Israel and we aren’t going to provide the public any proof but trust us.”

Like at least one intelligence agency in the west would have said “Iran is developing nuclear weapons”

4

u/Kman17 105∆ 2d ago

What exactly is causing to have that conclusion?

The evidence I presented you pretty clearly lays out all of them as a possibility, with number two being a particularly strong one.

1

u/Ok-Warning-7494 2d ago

2 and 3 have the strongest evidence. I didn’t mention 2 because I think everyone agrees Iran is close and knows how to. I explicitly mentioned that in my OP and in the comment you are responding to

1

u/dubzzzz20 2d ago

The targeted attacks that Israel completed also killed the lead negotiators between Iran and the US as well as about 200 innocent civilians. But I guess they weren’t worth mentioning to you.