New military conflict between Iran and Israel

[AgnosticBoy]

Israel bombed some of Iran's nuclear facilities this past Thursday. The next day, Iran retaliated by firing waves of drones and missiles on Israel. Since then, both countries have been striking each other.

Personally, I'm for the strikes on Iran because Iran is seen as the head of the snake for a lot of the terror groups in the Middle East (Hamas, Hezbollah, etc).
President Trump is calling on them to stop fighting and make a deal. I think that's weak and/or premature at best, assuming the objective was to destroy Iran's nuclear capability. I'm also not sure if a deal should be called for when Iran has pommeled some of Israel's towns. I'm thinking just that alone (besides just the nuclear threat from Iran) warrants Israel to strike back. As an analogy, it's like you punching someone in the face, and then he hits you back, and then someone says lets make a deal. Kinda hard to pull back at that point.

I'll open it up to other members.

What is your view on this most recent conflict? Is Trump handling this matter good by asking both sides to come to a deal? Will cause divide to between Trump and the Republicans who want "peace through strength"?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

In my view, President Trump has handled this matter in a disastrous way. I find it hard to believe that Israel acted alone without US approval. There are reports that Trump made threats that if Iran didn't come to good enough terms regarding their Nuclear program, that "bad things" would happen. So it seems Trump used Israel to attack Iran as a bargaining chip to bully Iran into a deal, and he didn't expect Iran to fight back as hard as they are now. In my view, that was a big mistake, a huge miscalculation.

Now that Israel and Iran have done significant damage to each other, he wants them to show restraint and make a deal. I say let them duke it out. I consider Iran more of a threat than Russia, and at least Israel has a good chance of winning that war than Ukraine does against Russia.

Trump has unreasonable expectations for the Russia and Ukraine conflict as well. He expects them to make a deal after they have recently done some of the most devastating attacks against each other.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Rare interview with two opposite party Senators that agree on Israel and Iran issue...

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

As an analogy, it's like you punching someone in the face, and then he hits you back, and then someone says lets make a deal. Kinda hard to pull back at that poin

Not if you’re China who invaded India in 1962.

And I think we should add to our skill set something other than just total war. Or at least be aware that China has in its tool set a different method.

Over some conflict on ? ?? …. China invaded some borderlands of India Oct 20, 1962, stayed exactly a month, and left on Nov 20 declaring a ceasefire. Apparently, China decided that was enough punishment. We had punished India enough, that’s all we care to punish them.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

And I think we should add to our skill set something other than just total war.

This is a good point. Didn't President Clinton and NATO in bomb Kosovo? They were able to meet their objectives without having to put any boots on the ground, just use of bomber aircrafts.

I think most Americans would be against some full scale war, but they would be okay with something like what you bring up about China. Perhaps the US and Israel can just bomb the nuclear sites and leave it at that. Full scale war and regime change should probably be out of the cars seeing how much we've spent in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The entire news segment was good. A Democrat Senator touched on some of the same thinking that @Multicolored Lemur brings up regarding what type of war to engage in.

The part is talked about in 5:30 to 6:00 minute mark but I recommend watching his interview from the beginning...

From :33 to 5:30 also talks some about Trump's strategy for those that want to keep up-to-date on what Trump is thinking...

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's analysis from the Left on the issue of Iran acquiring a nuke:

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

I guess the “obvious” move is to hit that one site at the mountain with the bunker busters. Hit it Hard. But don’t get involved in regime change.

I don’t know how we got this involved, this quickly.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

Israel hasn't hit Iran's secretive Fordo nuclear facility yet. Here's why it might.

Iran has long been suspected of hiding work toward a nuclear weapon at its underground Fordo enrichment site.

www.cbsnews.com

Mr. Trump has been briefed on both the risks and benefits of bombing Fordo, and his mindset is that disabling it is necessary because of the risk of weapons being produced in a relatively short period of time, multiple sources told CBS News.

The White House said Thursday that he expects to make a decision within two weeks. “Based on the fact that there is a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,” Mr. Trump said in a statement.

———

And we’ll see.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

What is your view on this most recent conflict?

I think I'm finally ready to answer this factoring in arguments from both sides.

Should we strike Iran?

I think most would say yes, if they have a nuke or are actively working to build one. That's the side I'm on, and I'd go further to even preemptively srike their nuclear facilities. I'll explain more on why while responding to opposing side that say not to strike Iran at all.

Those that oppose striking Iran tend to question the motives of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu since he has been wanting to strike Iran for over a decade. He also has a history, spanning some 30 years back, of claiming Iran is close to having a nuke according according to one source, like Al Jazeera. Also, Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, stated in March that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon.

Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified in March that the US intelligence community, “continues to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized a nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.”

- CNN

My objection to those that say not to strike Iran would be based on time and action, like if Iran is moving towards the direction of a nuclear weapon (or being able to make one )and how long it would take to make one at that point that they're at. This analysis is what got me thinking about this:

The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, says Iran has now accumulated a little over 400 kilograms (about 900 pounds) of Uranium-235 enriched to 60% purity.

For comparison, uranium enriched to 5% can be used to run a civilian nuclear power plant, and 90% enrichment is considered weapons grade.

To go from 60% to 90% enrichment can be done quickly, according to nuclear experts.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2025/06/18/nx-s...on-status-of-irans-nuclear-program-whos-right

I question why they have so much Uranium that's way above what would be needed to run nuclear for civilian use.

And this process of making a nuke would only take months according to one article that was published in 2023:

Weapons-grade uranium is enriched up to 90%. While the IAEA’s director-general has warned Iran now has enough uranium to produce “several” nuclear bombs if it chooses, it likely would take months more to build a weapon and potentially miniaturize it to put on a missile.

- AP

So regardless of Israel's warnings that may've started 30 years ago, where we stand now is that Iran has been inching closer and closer having to make a nuke. Just having all of that Uranium is questionable by itself, and we shouldn't be naive to think that when they decide to make one that they will announce it for all the world to know. Given all these factors, I'd be for the US doing a preemptive strike on Iran.