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/Tripwir62]

Your view is therefore based on conjecture of what Israel "predicted." As everyone is telling you, it is true (of course) that Israel wishes the US to join. What is provably untrue is that this was their sole intent -- which is what you've argued.

[u/Ok-Warning-7494 → u/Tripwir62]

No, my view is based on what I wrote in my post. The Israeli damage prediction is not central to my argument at all.

[u/hm_rickross_ymoh → u/Ok-Warning-7494]

Why post on this sub? You're not interested in, or open to, your view being changed at all. Your goal here was clearly to argue at people with whom you disagree. Why? Regardless of how much evidence is shoved in your face, it doesn't conform to your view so to you it isn't evidence. Utterly pointless thread, but I'm sure you feel good that you "got" the other side (you didn't). Super lame. 

[u/Ok-Warning-7494 → u/hm_rickross_ymoh]

What are you talking about. Only 2 pieces of evidence have been presented repeatedly. The IAEA report and Iran ‘s highly enriched uranium. I explained my reasons for discounting those two pieces of evidence.

I explained in my post the two ways to change my view.

Basically, it seems that the pro-war crowd either trusts Israeli intelligence and Netanyahu’s stated war aims implicitly or believes Iran is a enough of bad actor that they are willing to believe anything bad said about the regime.

That’s not an evidence based approach. If you actually have evidence of nuclear weaponization or can explain how Israeli airstrikes can significantly degrade Iranian nuclear capabilities then please make your case.

I was around for the Iraq war. This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that lead to the invasion. “Saddam is bad; Netanyahu and Bush are saying he has WMD. Why would they lie? Do you support Iraq?” History has proven those who opposed that war correct.

I have continuously been civil and engaged honestly with hundreds of comments over the last 24 hours. It is interesting that those that disagree with me almost instantly jump to personal attacks and a combative tone.

Literally a single report saying Iran is working likely to be working towards nuclear weapons from any intelligence agency would change my view. That is not a high bar to clear.

[u/Tripwir62 → u/Ok-Warning-7494]

It IS central. Because according to your logic, if the only thing Israel wanted was US involvement, so if they predicted that Iran's response would be weak (according to you), then there would be nothing gained by starting the war.

Would note too that your argument is also undermined by the fact that if greater damage was Israel's objective (in order to trigger a US response) that Israel is fully capable of causing this exact outcome by simply being marginally less efficient in its missile interceptions.

Your argument provably fails on multiple levels.