As an aside, Israel cannot permanently prevent Iran from getting nukes.
The science is well understood, and technology is constantly evolving. Plus, what's the downside for the Iranian regime?
I would be very surprised if they didn't demonstrate nuclear capability in the next four years.
They absolutely can “permanently prevent them” by constantly bombing Iran into the Stone Age every time they get near. And eventually they might get a new Iranian regime that does not desire nukes
Question is more: does Israel have that level of determination and skill and can they keep it up for year after year
Iran is a multi ethnic state with some large and disaffected minorities. Fun could be had all round with a shaky regime thats unpopular with its own people.
Oh, the Iranian regime is not a popular one. And they need a secret police to keep everyone in line.
But those people expecting a repressive state to collapse just because its unpopular should probably look to Russia.
I have no doubt Iran can go on for some time, notwithstanding the fact that every Iranian I know despises the regime (which does of course come with bias because if I'm talking to them they aren't living in downtown Tehran).
I think most people in downtown Tehran share the same view. Support for the regime is mostly in the rural areas.
1. Israel has already significantly weakened Iranian proxies that are close to Israel. In the past, such an attack on Iran would see Hamas, Hezbollah and Syrian proxies launch attacks on Israel from close-range. There may still be some of this (e.g. Houthis), but clearly Iran's ability to project power close to Israel is very significantly reduced.
2. Israel and Iran are really far from each other. Over 1,000km at its nearest point. So proper missiles are going to be far more effective than cheap drones (unless launched from close by). That makes it far more plausible for Israel to gain dominance in the air by destroying Iranian launch and air defence capabilities.
3. Iran hasn't *really* been trying to get a nuclear bomb. It's been trying to be close and have the ability to accelerate if needed. There's a very real risk Iran sees this attack as existential and progresses to having nuclear weapons in the next few years. And then the danger to Israel increases dramatically given they have attacked Iran so directly and forcefully.
It strikes me as a "if you come for the king, you best not miss" scenario. If Israel fails to sufficiently impair Iran's nuclear programme from these attacks, then it ends up in a more dangerous place than it started. So I struggle to see how this will be a short-lived campaign. Israel is in a ruthless mood. We see that with the tragic scenes in Gaza and I think we are going to see it in Iran too.
On your last point, I think it's subtly different.
Iran can - relatively easily - get to the point where it is able to replicate the Trinity test, and prove it can explode a nuclear weapon. US intelligence is of the view they have enough enriched uranium for one bomb.
But Iran lacks a reliable launch platform for it. And to have a credible nuclear deterrent, you need both the bomb (ideally multiple bombs) and a way of getting them on target.
Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.
Saddam.
Nope, there was a land invasion in 2003, remember?
Yes, but the bombing seems to have almost destroyed the regime first, from what I remember.
That could have been exaggerated, ofcourse.
The 'mission accomplished' photo op was certainly ill judged.
Netanyahu of course was very pro Iraq war. He's a bit gung ho for war in general.
This is nothing to do with Netanyahu nor with continuing the war on Bibi’s behalf
Watch the tv drama series Tehran
Israel will never accept a nuclear armed Iran as it is a mortal threat to the entire Jewish state. As long as Israel is able and willing to do so, it will therefore check Iran before it reaches nuclear armed status. That’s the ethos that underpins Tehran the series, it’s made plain this has been Israel’s stance for decades and will be in the future
And obvs this amazing attack has been in the planning for many years - like the Hezbollah pager attack. It’s not something Bibi concocted in April on his Tod
The only reason it is happening now is because this is the right moment for multiple military and geopolitical reasons
I agree that funding promises is the right attack line on Reform. But there is an issue of what the target is. Reform are, as I see it, in a process of moving from a complete unicorn party - low tax, both lots of free stuff and small state, eight trillion efficiency savings, DOGE to discover trillions down the sofa, abolish regulation, global free trade deals, six million newly qualified locals to fill all the vacancies, that sort of stuff - to a party wanting to put forward a programme for government.
IMO, the UK is not MAGA USA. The plurality/majority while being fond of taxing others and receiving free stuff, do not have an entirely magical, mystical quasi religious Trumpian view of reality. We are not going to vote into government untrustworthy stuff that simply doesn't add up even remotely.
So the attack will have to be on something not yet existing - a Reform 2029 manifesto. This will be a great deal more sensible that Reforms' past or even present. It will be the most scrutinised political documents ever.
Key features will be: High spend (therefore high tax); social conservatism (this is not costly); abolish net zero but acknowledge climate change; border control; gimmicks; and 'it will take time to undo the mess'.
Where is the evidence that they are "wanting to put forward a programme for government"? At least, a serious one?
Their big, recent announcement was that cutting net zero would fund everything, but they misread (deliberately or out of stupidity, it's unclear) an Institute for Government figure of £225 billion savings as if that meant £225 billion savings to government spending, when most of the money is private expenditure.
Don’t we have a ban on Leon spamming PB with generative AI output?
"Ooh, Sir! Sir! That nasty Leon is posting something that I really, really hope will get him banned!"
His earlier condemnation of others for being the ‘worst kind of ethno-nationalist, with no redeeming features whatsoever’, an opinion apparently proffered with a completely straight face, should alone surely get him banned for a truly tragic self-awareness failure?
1. Israel has already significantly weakened Iranian proxies that are close to Israel. In the past, such an attack on Iran would see Hamas, Hezbollah and Syrian proxies launch attacks on Israel from close-range. There may still be some of this (e.g. Houthis), but clearly Iran's ability to project power close to Israel is very significantly reduced.
2. Israel and Iran are really far from each other. Over 1,000km at its nearest point. So proper missiles are going to be far more effective than cheap drones (unless launched from close by). That makes it far more plausible for Israel to gain dominance in the air by destroying Iranian launch and air defence capabilities.
3. Iran hasn't *really* been trying to get a nuclear bomb. It's been trying to be close and have the ability to accelerate if needed. There's a very real risk Iran sees this attack as existential and progresses to having nuclear weapons in the next few years. And then the danger to Israel increases dramatically given they have attacked Iran so directly and forcefully.
It strikes me as a "if you come for the king, you best not miss" scenario. If Israel fails to sufficiently impair Iran's nuclear programme from these attacks, then it ends up in a more dangerous place than it started. So I struggle to see how this will be a short-lived campaign. Israel is in a ruthless mood. We see that with the tragic scenes in Gaza and I think we are going to see it in Iran too.
On your last point, I think it's subtly different.
Iran can - relatively easily - get to the point where it is able to replicate the Trinity test, and prove it can explode a nuclear weapon. US intelligence is of the view they have enough enriched uranium for one bomb.
But Iran lacks a reliable launch platform for it. And to have a credible nuclear deterrent, you need both the bomb (ideally multiple bombs) and a way of getting them on target.
Is that not where their proxies come in?
Whilst the distance between Iran and Israel is vast, it's not particularly well policed (to put it mildly). Iraq followed by Syria and then you are spitting distance from Israel.
Sure, you'd need more than one to have a good chance of success via such a route. But I can understand why Israel isn't happy for them to have a nuke with no traditional launch capability.
Just an FYI - There was a recent update to Vanilla, it will automatically ban spambots when it detects AI generated text being posted on PB.
"I felt a great disturbance in the Farce, as if millions of @SeanT's suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something wonderful has happened."
"The global nuclear watchdog's board of governors has formally declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years.
Nineteen of the 35 countries on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted for the motion, which was backed by the US, UK, France and Germany.
It says Iran's "many failures" to provide the IAEA with full answers about its undeclared nuclear material and activities constitutes non-compliance. It also expresses concern about Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, which can be used to make reactor fuel but also nuclear weapons." https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3v6w2qr12o
(Possibly relevant to this topic.)
ios it coincidence that Israels attack many months if not years in the planning should happen on the very day of the report?
Comments
Star lawyer chases Post Office victim over ‘unpaid fees’
https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/star-lawyer-chases-post-office-victim-over-unpaid-fees
Iran can - relatively easily - get to the point where it is able to replicate the Trinity test, and prove it can explode a nuclear weapon. US intelligence is of the view they have enough enriched uranium for one bomb.
But Iran lacks a reliable launch platform for it. And to have a credible nuclear deterrent, you need both the bomb (ideally multiple bombs) and a way of getting them on target.
He's been like a coiled spring all day!
Lib Dem thinks Reform are bad. What a shock.
Whilst the distance between Iran and Israel is vast, it's not particularly well policed (to put it mildly). Iraq followed by Syria and then you are spitting distance from Israel.
Sure, you'd need more than one to have a good chance of success via such a route. But I can understand why Israel isn't happy for them to have a nuke with no traditional launch capability.
‘Inset at jaunty angle’ made me laugh
NEW THREAD
https://apnews.com/article/sex-crimes-south-carolina-lawmaker-rj-may-81901be6f700f24a99ba3346086f8b61