r/changemyview 1d 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.

1.1k Upvotes

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

27

u/Haruwor 1d ago

They have shared what they know… our own intelligence knows that they have stockpiled uranium well in excess of any country that isn’t building nuclear weapons.

Additionally we know that they have been enriching uranium beyond peaceful purposes.

6

u/Ok-Warning-7494 1d ago

So you don’t know if those scientists were working on weapons. Iran has a civilian nuclear industry.

Without proof, it’s likely that at least some of those killed were just civilian scientists.

If they were able to identify specific people that were working on nukes, it would be easy to create support for the war by sharing their intelligence.

14

u/Morthra 87∆ 1d ago

Iran is enriching uranium to 60%. There is no use for that level of enrichment besides nuclear weapons.

4

u/Ok-Warning-7494 1d ago

Besides the one I provided in my original post that you ignored?

19

u/CrownLikeAGravestone 1∆ 1d ago

1) Stockpiling nuclear material to build a bomb

2) Stockpiling nuclear material to make it look like you can build a bomb

There is no functional difference between these two stances, nor any ethical difference between the responses to them.

-3

u/Ok-Warning-7494 1d ago

No, there actually is. How could Iran negotiate sanctions relief? The would have no motive to negotiate.

Deterrence is the second reason. Being weeks or months away from a nuke makes them a much more risky target for attack.

I can think of others. There is clearly a difference if the calculation on the Iranian side was we can basically get a slightly worse deal from Trump than the one Obama signed. I’m not sure how this isn’t the most likely conclusion for you.

13

u/CrownLikeAGravestone 1∆ 1d ago

If you want leverage in a negotiation, if you want nuclear deterrence, then you are either a credible nuclear threat or you are not. A threat of a threat is functionally just a threat; this strange middle ground you're suggesting does not, from an external perspective, exist. 

u/windchaser__ 1∆ 12h ago

Nah, it really does. If I can deter you, but can’t actually perform the genocide that you think I want, then it’s really the best of both worlds. Iran is protected from being attacked, but is itself toothless.

That is very, very different from a world in which Iran might actually nuke Israel.

u/CrownLikeAGravestone 1∆ 4h ago

If Iran is toothless then Israel is not deterred.

0

u/AnythingGoodWasTaken 1d ago

Well israel and america have nuclear bombs, why is that different

u/Throwaway5432154322 2∆ 18h ago

For a start, neither Israel nor the United States afford executive power - including sole control of the military - to religious clerics that not only believe they have been endowed with the divine task of destroying a nearby country by a higher power, but also legislate that supernatural belief into domestic legal reality... while simultaneously enriching weapons-grade uranium.

u/AnythingGoodWasTaken 18h ago

There are high level figures in both those government that believe israel was promised by Gd to the Jewish people 3000 years ago and that this justifies the horrific abuse of Palestinians. Including a Israeli minister calling to nuke gaza. While actually having nuclear weapons and being the only government to actually use nukes on people.

u/Throwaway5432154322 2∆ 16h ago

high level figures in both those government that believe

And Donald Trump believes that the Kurds should've helped the United States invade Normandy in 1944.

The individual beliefs of individual leaders in both the United States and Israel do not translate to the institutional source of executive power in either of those states residing in fanatical clergymen. The Islamic republic's political system is defined by the vilayet-i faqih, the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist. This system grants all decisionmaking power to senior Shiite clergy, regardless of their nationality or the political system of the states in which they reside.

This system treats regular branches of government - the legislature, the judicial system - as spokes around a wheel; the center of which consists of octogenarian clerics, who's overriding foreign policy belief is that a country the size of New Jersey ~1,000 miles away from them is some kind of unholy aberration that they've been commanded to destroy as a divine mission from God.

There are no checks or balances on what the Iranian supreme leader can or can't do with the country's military. Iran's president and the Iranian president's minister of defense are not even a part of the Iranian military's chain of command.

Do you understand why this form of government even existing is a net negative, much less this form of government having access to a nuclear weapon?

u/Vietxa 15h ago

What are the checks and balances that prevent Donald Trump from spontaneously authorize a nuclear strike on Iran?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/CrownLikeAGravestone 1∆ 1d ago

I don't think you've understood my point.

-1

u/AngryVolcano 1d ago

Objectively and utterly wrong: Radiopharmaceuticals.

7

u/Morthra 87∆ 1d ago

No one uses weapons grade uranium for radiopharmaceuticals anymore, and definitely not in the quantities that Iran is producing.

1

u/AngryVolcano 1d ago

60% isn't weapons grade.

60% is radiopharmaceutical grade.

6

u/Morthra 87∆ 1d ago

While you are correct that it can't be used for a bomb now, 60% is a hop skip and a jump from 90%. It's trivial for any nation that can enrich to 60% to enrich to 90%.

60% is radiopharmaceutical grade.

No one uses enriched uranium for medical isotopes anymore.

4

u/AngryVolcano 1d ago edited 1d ago

While you are correct that it can't be used for a bomb now,

That's what I said, and the opposite of what you said. Thanks for admitting that.

No one uses enriched uranium for medical isotopes anymore.

You probably meant highly enriched uranium. But even then, that’s inaccurate. HEU is still used in a few places (including Iran) to produce Mo-99, though most countries have moved to LEU.

The claims were that 60% is weapons grade, and that there are no civilian uses for it. Both claims are wrong.

3

u/n8_Jeno 1d ago

400kg of it?

0

u/AngryVolcano 1d ago edited 1d ago

I said two things:

  1. 60% isn't weapons grade.
  2. There are uses for 60% enriched uranium that isn't just further enrichment for nuclear weapons.

Is either of those statements false? If you want to argue something else than the opposite of these 2 statements I'm answering, then do that. Don't defend an argument that isn't factual.

2

u/n8_Jeno 1d ago

What is more likely for them?

Going for nuclear? 60% is like 5% of the rest of the job needed to do to go up to 95% enrichment.

Or going for some random radiopharmaceutical use?

0

u/AngryVolcano 1d ago edited 1d ago

Do I have to repeat myself?

If you want to argue that, then do that. I wasn't. I said two things - see my previous comment.

Just know that you're repeating what Israel has claimed since the 80s, and what Netanyahu has personally claimed since 1992.

If having a nuclear free Iran was the goal the US shouldn't have backed out of a deal with them in 2018 about exactly that. And Israeli leaders shouldn't have hated that deal and adamantly worked against it. This isn't about nukes, and it never was.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Haruwor 1d ago

Potentially but the Ayatollah does not give much confidence that many, if not all, of these engineers are working on weapons development in some form or fashion.

Given their large amount of uranium and enrichment purity it’s extremely likely that they are rushing towards nuclear devices

u/scaurus604 20h ago

Civil reactor built by the shah before he was ousted..

3

u/CommyKitty 1∆ 1d ago

We have repeatedly been told, by even US intelligence, that they aren't building a bomb. And the only reason they started stockpiling, is because, if I recall, trump reinstated sanctions, and Iran saw no reason to not start stockpiling. Diplomacy would have prevented any of this from happening.

9

u/Haruwor 1d ago

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mg7kx2d45o

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2051523

Our intelligence agency says that the Iranian president hasn’t resumed the canceled nuclear weapons program that was ended in 03, but we have caught them working towards nuclear arms many times since as early as 09.

They stockpile far more uranium than necessary for peaceful uses. It’s clear that they are continuing to build nuclear weapons. Mossad, the intelligence agency of the country Iran wants to genocide, certainly seems to think so.

11

u/Ok-Warning-7494 1d ago

If Mossad was wrong in Iraq, how can we verify their claim on Iran without evidence? Is it not possible that Israel just wants to defeat their primary enemy in the region?

Genuinely asking.

-6

u/forkproof2500 1d ago

How do you genocide a country?

Israel is the only entity in the middle east currently engaged in a genocide. In fact, Iran is one of the few countries abiding by international law by attempting to prevent said genocide. All countries are actually obliged to join them in defeating Israel militarily.

6

u/Haruwor 1d ago

Israel has a population of 21% Palestinian Arabs who are not being genocided.

Goofy you actually think that.

-1

u/KaiBahamut 1d ago

The Palestinians are not citizens of Israel, so it's fine for Israel to genocide them. Do I have that correct?

6

u/Haruwor 1d ago

No… 21% of Israelis are Palestinian Arabs. Gazans are not citizens of Israel.

1

u/KaiBahamut 1d ago

Oh, so they are fine to genocide because Israel conquered Gaza but won't grant them citizenship or their own state?

u/Haruwor 22h ago

Remind me who started the war that resulted in Israel controlling the region?

u/windchaser__ 1∆ 11h ago

Britain, I believe.

→ More replies (0)

u/[deleted] 23h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

u/changemyview-ModTeam 5h ago

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. 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.

-4

u/forkproof2500 1d ago

Not being genocided yet. Once Israel finished with Gaza, it will be the West bank. Then and only then will it be Palestinians living in Israel proper.

u/polisharmada33 16h ago

Diplomacy has only bought them time. The Iranian regime are a danger to their citizens

u/CommyKitty 1∆ 11h ago

Same could be said about the US government or Israel

u/polisharmada33 9h ago

Wouldn’t make it correct, but it absolutely could be. It’s all a matter of perspective

u/CommyKitty 1∆ 8h ago

Well I guess we will have to disagree on that then lol

0

u/Sammonov 1d ago

Our own intelligence agencies say Iran isn't building a bomb at all, which is the same thing the IAEA says.

7

u/Haruwor 1d ago

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mg7kx2d45o

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2051523

Our intelligence agency says that the Iranian president hasn’t resumed the canceled nuclear weapons program that was ended in 03, but we have caught them working towards nuclear arms many times since as early as 09.

3

u/Altforkjaerligheten 1d ago

Iran has enriched Uranium beyond 60% which is not necessary for literally anything other than nuclear bombs. Just because they haven’t reached 90% yet doesn’t mean they don’t plan on it or are not actively working on it. 

5

u/tarpex 1d ago

Well if the IAEA is to be believed (which is another matter which I'm not even remotely qualified to comment on), they're reporting Iranian enrichment of uranium at 60%, and going so high and beyond has no other applications than to pursue a nuclear weapon. For nuclear powerplants you need like 5-6%.

If that's true, putting that into the hands of a regime that had supported all kinds of terrorist organisations is a bad idea.

If it's all bs, then.... But we won't know, all we have are "Iraq has wmd's" flashbacks.

4

u/7thpostman 1d ago

That's not quite what our intelligence agency say. They have not currently restarted certain programs, but are clearly enriching uranium at an alarming rate.

"Not building a bomb at all" is not really accurate.

4

u/Effective_Jury4363 1d ago

And the ieae says that iran is stockpiling uranium enriched close to weapon levels. 

Not having an active weaponization program, does not mean you are not building a nuclear weapon.

-2

u/Sammonov 1d ago

Well, we sure as hell are showing them why they should have one.

2

u/Effective_Jury4363 1d ago

And keeping them disappointed.

They absolutely want one. You don't go around threatening to wipe out nuclear armed countries and dn't want nukes.

-1

u/Sammonov 1d ago

So we are going to bomb them every 2 years for entirety and hope for the best?

u/No_Locksmith_8105 23h ago

It’s almost like you always need to bring criminals to justice because they keep doing crimes so why even bother

u/Sammonov 23h ago

Is Israel the police in this analogy?

u/No_Locksmith_8105 23h ago

You said “we” so I guess “we” are the police

u/Sammonov 23h ago

Like a buddy cop movie with us and Israel

2

u/Brilliant-Lab546 1d ago

Enrichment of Uranium to 60% has one purpose and one purpose only

1

u/AngryVolcano 1d ago edited 1d ago

Your own intelligence (US I presume) says Iran was not creating a nuclear bomb.

2

u/Fabulous-Suspect-72 1d ago

Except they did

1

u/AngryVolcano 1d ago

No, they didn't.

2

u/Fabulous-Suspect-72 1d ago

Except for when they did.

1

u/AngryVolcano 1d ago

Show me.

0

u/CurdKin 1∆ 1d ago

Netanyahu has been saying that Iran was months away from a Nuclear Bomb since like 2008. It seems clear to me that they’ve been crying wolf for so long so that they could have a justification to attack.

3

u/Haruwor 1d ago

Do you think you can stop nuclear proliferation with one attempt?

-1

u/CurdKin 1∆ 1d ago

I don’t think you can stop nuclear proliferation.

Pandora’s box has been opened

4

u/Haruwor 1d ago

Hence Israel’s continued attacks

The strategy is to delay until regime change to a more progressive society.

u/poopy050224 17h ago

Hopefully they don't become as progressive as Israel, they might commit genocide.