6 ms·

So it’s not about nuclear weapons?

by fruit2020 6mo ago

yanhangyhy 6mo ago
its always oil and 'freedom'
bluealienpie 6mo ago
It was never about nuclear weapons, Netanyahu has been saying Iran was one week away for over 30 years. Europe goes along as an excuse to support politically unpopular war to maintain US support for Ukraine.
- fruit2020 6mo ago
  What would you expect Europe to do? It’s not like they openly support this war. The Iranian diaspora supports it, there is the secularism element, but the US doesn’t care about the Iranian people anyway
  - decimalenough 6mo ago
    The diaspora is happy about the regime being targeted. They will be much, much more ambivalent if the US starts targeting power infrastructure and innocent people in hospitals etc start dying en masse.
    - lenkite 6mo ago
      Power infrastructure & hospitals are already being targeted and bombed. Just doesn't make the news.
      - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > Power infrastructure & hospitals are already being targeted and bombed It's absolutely not. If they were being targeted, material fractions of them would be getting destroyed. Instead we're seeing one offs, which look more like fuckups or Israeli nonsense.
  - orwin 6mo ago
    The diaspora somewhat supported it for a week. Then a desalination plant was hit, and I guarantee the support grew way, way weaker. Now we're 3 weeks in, and the only Iranian I keep contact with is extremely sad that the outcome is this bad. I won't tell him 'i told you so', because unlike people on HN who argue for the operation, he doesn't deserve it, but to the 'regime change' supporters: I told you so.
- IncreasePosts 6mo ago
  No, he hasn't been saying that, despite what you may have read in a random reddit comment. In the 90s he was saying 3-5 years. In 2010 it was 1-2 years. The first time any kind of claim measured in weeks was immediately before Rising Lion last year, and guess what, the IAEA agreed with him.
  - riffraff 6mo ago
    In 2015 he said weeks. I think we can agree a few weeks passed before that and bombing Iran ten years later. https://youtube.com/shorts/jlqXOwYfpdQ?is=woFU_DlsW3Eb5NYd https://youtube.com/shorts/jlqXOwYfpdQ?is=woFU_DlsW3Eb5NYd
    - IncreasePosts 6mo ago
      I think we can agree that being weeks away from having enough fissile material for a nuke is different from being weeks away from having a nuke. Unless you think you just get your fissile material and then pop it in the next day
pas 6mo ago
the nuclear weapons program has cost about 2T USD for Iran, and definitely makes certain arguments for intervention more acceptable, but it doesn't negate the other side of the equation. the cost of intervention is still enormous. (and since the enriched uranium is an obvious target it is obviously even more protected)

So it’s not about nuclear weapons?

its always oil and 'freedom'

It was never about nuclear weapons, Netanyahu has been saying Iran was one week away for over 30 years. Europe goes along as an excuse to support politically unpopular war to maintain US support for Ukraine.

fruit2020 6mo ago
What would you expect Europe to do? It’s not like they openly support this war. The Iranian diaspora supports it, there is the secularism element, but the US doesn’t care about the Iranian people anyway
- decimalenough 6mo ago
  The diaspora is happy about the regime being targeted. They will be much, much more ambivalent if the US starts targeting power infrastructure and innocent people in hospitals etc start dying en masse.
  - lenkite 6mo ago
    Power infrastructure & hospitals are already being targeted and bombed. Just doesn't make the news.
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > Power infrastructure & hospitals are already being targeted and bombed It's absolutely not. If they were being targeted, material fractions of them would be getting destroyed. Instead we're seeing one offs, which look more like fuckups or Israeli nonsense.
- orwin 6mo ago
  The diaspora somewhat supported it for a week. Then a desalination plant was hit, and I guarantee the support grew way, way weaker. Now we're 3 weeks in, and the only Iranian I keep contact with is extremely sad that the outcome is this bad. I won't tell him 'i told you so', because unlike people on HN who argue for the operation, he doesn't deserve it, but to the 'regime change' supporters: I told you so.
IncreasePosts 6mo ago
No, he hasn't been saying that, despite what you may have read in a random reddit comment. In the 90s he was saying 3-5 years. In 2010 it was 1-2 years. The first time any kind of claim measured in weeks was immediately before Rising Lion last year, and guess what, the IAEA agreed with him.
- riffraff 6mo ago
  In 2015 he said weeks. I think we can agree a few weeks passed before that and bombing Iran ten years later. https://youtube.com/shorts/jlqXOwYfpdQ?is=woFU_DlsW3Eb5NYd https://youtube.com/shorts/jlqXOwYfpdQ?is=woFU_DlsW3Eb5NYd
  - IncreasePosts 6mo ago
    I think we can agree that being weeks away from having enough fissile material for a nuke is different from being weeks away from having a nuke. Unless you think you just get your fissile material and then pop it in the next day

pas 6mo ago

the nuclear weapons program has cost about 2T USD for Iran, and definitely makes certain arguments for intervention more acceptable, but it doesn't negate the other side of the equation. the cost of intervention is still enormous. (and since the enriched uranium is an obvious target it is obviously even more protected)