Meanwhile, they are exchanging ultimatums for even more mutual destruction (Iran's power grid vs basically everything worth anything in the rest of Middle East). And the rest of the world is just watching silently.
Targeting the power grid in a tit-for-tat strategy is lunatic.
Just imagine. Iran has around 400+ power plants. The GCC countries have around 40 and depend on them for their desalination plants. Not to mention the UAE runs a nuclear power plant as well.
So if Trump doesn't chicken out and destroys 10% of Irans powerplants, the Iranies tit-for-tat may cause total catastrophic damage to the gulf countries by cutting water supply with no chance of timely repairs.
Exactly. The worst part of it - even if trump does realise the consequences (probably someone at least tried to explain them to him), he is still too self-centered to care. At this point, I won't be too surprised if in a week (after making this catastrophe reality) he starts threatening to nuke Iran next (as if that would "fix" anything, considering the Hormuz strait won't be much use to anyone anymore by then, no matter how "open").
What's more: both the Iran's power grid and Iran's gas grid are more resilient than the mass of power- and gas grids in the EU. Results in a situation where, regardless how mountainous their homeland might be, average Iranians can reach back upon the same volume of power like average EU-citizens.
Your conclusions are well thought through and evidential, thank you.
However there is sadly a bit of false equivalence with Israel and Iran. You started looking at theory so let’s stay there. Israel assassinated nuclear scientists, family was collateral. Iran just lobs a big bomb at a civilian town linked to a nuclear facility.
This is of course a matter of capability - Iran isn’t able to do what Israel does and perhaps might if it could. It is nonetheless very different. You might as well say Ukraine is the same as Russia because it kills civilians hanging around near ammo depots.
Nope. It was not just 'family was collateral'. Over 1,000 civilians were massacred in Israel's bombardment of apartments of specific scientists (and political- and military leaders), and over 5,000 wounded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Twelve-Day_War).
Essentially, the Israelis were bombing out entire apartment buildings - even entire streets full of apartment buildings and occupied cars - in complete disregard for the safety of the people living there.
This is no matter of capability: just like Iranian missiles are not precise enough to target specific apartments or homes, the Israeli weapons are, but the Israelis simply do not care.
(...or, if asked if they care, the IDF explains it's targeting is done by the AI, and AI said the collateral damage is OK... where, actually, there is always a 'man-in-the-loop' even with the AI, i.e. there is somebody who is rising or lowering the 'acceptable level of collateral damage' for the AI.)
I cannot but repeat it: learn to drop the double standards. What's valid for one side is valid for the other too - even more so if one of parties has the capability to either avoid or significantly reduce the 'collateral damage', but simply does not care to do so (or, even worse: is intentionally causing these), and then also has a history of using human shields (while blaming others of doing that).
You are much more knowledgeable than me of course, you are the expert, I am not.
However I still cannot see what you claim. Israel bomb an apartment to kill a target (with lots of collateral). Iran lob a bomb at a town that might terrorise some civilians and never kills anyone ‘important’.
Perhaps you could be more specific and show me which specific apartment (verified by you or other non Iranian sources) were destroyed without a specific target in mind?
It’s important you understand that this is relative morality and of course I believe that both sides are committing war crimes. I am not right wing defender of anything Israel does. However one side (Iran) is clearly worse it seems from the evidence.
To really 'show' you everything, would need an extra feature - because one can't attach all the related illustrations (showing similar levels of damage by Israeli bombardment like the Gaza Strip, or half a street blown up - together with doznes of occupied cars - and similar) to 'reader's comments' on the Substack.
Re. 'relative morality': drop double standards.
Treat everybody as equal.
Consider every single Iranian civilian killed the same like every single Israeli killed.
Right now, the mass of 'the West' is considering it 'sad' when even two IDF soldiers get killed during Israel's renewed invasion of Lebanon: nobody cares about Israel's ruining of Lebanon for 55 years, about IDF troops refusing to talk about 'Lebanon' because they do not consider it a sovereign country (at most it's future 'Lebensraum'), nobody cares about Israeli real-estate companies already offering pieces of real estate in Lebanon for sale... and even less so about yet another violation of Lebanese sovereignty. All in the name of 'Israel has the right to exist' and 'Israel has the right to defend itself'... And the 900+ Lebanese civilians massacred by Israeli bombs... are what?
They're not even mentioned as such. Must've died on their own... 🙄
You may be surprised but I agree with everything in your reply. It is terrible that double standards are applied with regards to IDF soldiers in Lebanon or the country itself (which by the way would be more stable if it could get rid of Hezbollah without Israeli interference).
Nonetheless that does not damage the concept of relative morality. In war some crimes are worse than others and in examining Iran vs Israel, the evidence and rhetoric suggests Iran is worse. When examining other conflicts involving Israel, we be might say Israel is worse but this is about this conflict. Remember it is still Irans stated aim to destroy or enslave every Jew while the Israelis have too many enemies to bothering hating any one overtly.
Sorry, but it is not so difficult from my perspective. Consider the casualties in Gaza of the last few years and the fact that around 50% of the population in Gaza is below the age of 16 (or 18).
Now: How many kids were killed by Israel per day? What explanations of moral in terms of killing civilians is necessary to describe Israel’s approach?
Please explain to me the difference in your mind about lobbing a Missile into a Town - and Blowing up series of Apartment buildings in a Town - Whats the difference ? Is it the randomness you object to ? Because the end result is exactly the same right ?
The difference is the objective. If a legitimate target like a terrorist leader or an Iranian Nuclear scientist is hiding there then blowing up the building is wrong but it’s far less wrong than simply blowing up the building because you can. This is not too dissimilar to what Russia are doing in Kyiv.
I am kind of curious now - what in your mind is the actual moral difference between say the KSA and Iran . Both are effectively Theocracies of a sort - one with an actual King , the other without ( currently ) . Both would and do happily slaughter their own citizens , either protestors or by public executions . Both have systems of morality vastly opposed to that of the West . One is coddled up to the West currently and the other less so . What's the difference ? Is it just that Iran won't comply ?
KSA and Iran are both terrible regimes and I would agree that it is hypocritical for the west to cozy up to KSA in the way that they do. Also not really sure what that has to do with the topic at hand.
What is the value of that "relative morality" of yours? What purpose does it serve? Helping to convince yourself to take a "less evil" side when both (all) sides are undoubtedly evil? Mass-murdering civilians is mass-murdering civilians. Motivation doesn't change anything. In the end, killing 999 random people while targeting 1 specific person is the same as just killing 1000 random people because you can.
Relative morality is a path to something better. One should always seek to offer qualified support to the lesser of two evils.
If Israel succeed (and it’s likely they won’t as Tom succinctly argues in his article), then the world will be a better place without one of the worst regimes in the world - the Iranian theocracy. That would be better for its people and the wider world.
Similarly in other conflicts involving Israel we can take a different view, for example we can hope that Israel fails in any invasion of Lebanon.
If you are proposing to support the lesser evil then you can no longer limit your comparison to the harm Israel and Iran inflict upon each other (which in any case I suspect puts Israel in the worse light). You then have to take into account all their crimes. As Tom has pointed out, Israel's, in total, are much worse than Iran's. You also have to take into account your ability to influence them. None of us has any ability to stop Iran's terrible regime from killing 30,000 of its unhappy citizens, but it wouldn't take much to stop assisting Israel in its crimes.
1. A well thought through campaign (not this incompetent Trump one) could have stopped Iran slaughtering its own people.
2. Iran is far worse based on evidence we have than Iran in totality
3. Israel’s people support its form of govt even if many inside and out detest Netanyahu whereas regime change is desirable in Iran. Israel’s war crimes could heeled in by a change of party in govt, which like Iran.
No it is not. Relative morality is just another hypocritical buzzword for double standards.
Yes that theocracy in Iran is murderous and corrupt and doesn't care too much about the well being of it's own population, but that isn't a free ticket for Israel or the USA to do whatever they like to do.
I spent more than enough time of my life in the Near East to see with my owns eyes (not to talk about what my UN comrades told me) the fanatism of some Israeli people, the daily discrimination against Palestinians and it has become worse of the years.
This all creates just hate over hate and the bill isn't paid by just the responsible guilty ones, but by the common people.
Death and destruction don't care about gender, age or ethnicity. In the end they all are just victims, because of some ruthless, bloodthirsty idiots.
Relative morality is the only way forward. You can stick your fingers in your ears or shout at everyone or you can slowly try to influence a complicated conflict where everyone has blood on their hands in the right way. The right way means getting your hands dirty and accepting difficult compromise. The wrong way means useless protesting and feeling good about ourselves and trying to elect naive so called ‘anti-war’ politicians
Unbelievable . Seriously maybe look in to the actual history of Iran and see how it got to this place due to the constant violent interference of the West . Iran as it exists now is entirely the fault of the West/Israel - and here you are hating away and claiming the Israeli's are somehow morally superior . Explain how the position we are in now is morally preferable to one where the Iranians handed over all their enriched uranium and we had a peace deal . Is the violent death of the current Theocracy all that concerns you ? .
The history of interference on Iran (not just western) is terrible as you say.
Obama’s peace deal was as you imply far better than this war. In case you hadn’t noticed I agree with Toms conclusions and only disputed done false equivalence. This war looks like it will make everything worse.
Nonetheless it remains true that the current Iranian regime is worse than almost any other govt in the world and far worse than Israel. I do not mourn the leaders in the regime that have been killed - the world is a better place without them but I do mourn the clear path of destruction and failure that this war is taking.
Iran will be rich like KSA if no sanctions has been imposed on them since they have a better human capital. Why people do not take to streets in KSA and Qatar, because they are rich. If they choose that path KSA and Qatar will be much more brutal in their treatment. Why Iran face sanctions sole reason is they oppose Israel. Lol as west care about moral and Saudis have better morals than Iranians.
He means that Israel's collateral damage is sometimes on purpose, and Israel doesn't care anyhow, as the mass murder in Gaza and the attacks on Lebanon show. So there is no false equivalence, in my view.
Israel carpet bombed civilians in Gaza for two years straight. Every conflict Israel gets in has a civilian to combatant death ratio that would make Genghis Khan blush. Israelis have killed around 1000 people in Lebanon in the last few weeks alone, at least 118 of which were children. Even their nasty little pager attack showed a wanton disregard for civilian safety. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think Israel gives a fuck about collateral damage or civilians. Good grief.
Ridiculous, but this is exactly the same number Jews who are in power in Ukraine wrote in favor of Zelensky during the same Zelensky elections in 2019, 73% LOL.
Thank you for the update. Sad as it is to read the situation. And maybe the saddest thing of it was the survey on the Israelis attitude to civilians. This does not bode well for civilians in Lebanon and Iran, and of course indirectly Israeli civilians. Regarding invasion of the Kark islands, it is not difficult to find analysis’ that supports the idea and are anxiously waiting for those 2000+ marines charging in over the island. Overwhelming the demoralized weak Iranian defenders. And the this will force the regime to collapse because then it cannot get any income. I think they haven’t understood that from the Iranian point of view there is no possibility of negotiation. They will be attacked again and again. So Iran has no option but resist. And when those brave 2000 + marines have secured the island what are they then going to do? Costly and difficult to support them.
Two question on the war: The Gerald Ford is withdrawing from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean ((Crete? Cyprus location doesn’t matter) after a fire on board and other problems. 1) Is that having any military effect on the war? 2) Isn’t it risky to go through the Suez Canal now? Sitting duck so to speak. And closer to Iran than Diego Garcia is….
Nope, no direct effects. The USAF has deployed more than 50 additional combat- and combat-support aircraft the Middle East, this week alone. Moreover, France is now granting permission for USAF bombers based in the UK to use its airspace.
Re Suez Canal: is one of best-protected pieces of real estate in all of Egypt. Particularly so whenever a USN warship is passing it.
He wrote, among others, about the "Indian Ocean and the Security of Three Continents" (اقیانوس هند و امنیت پیرامون سه قاره), but it is hard to access, as it was probably just limited to his lectures at Imam Hossein University.
Maybe his article was put down, as apparently Khamenei Senior forbad the use of missiles with more than 2.000 km range?
On a side note, since you mentioned Lebanon: Despite the fact that the Syrian government is running an appeasement strategy towards Israel, they were attacked to.
Re. Khamenei prohibiting missiles with longer range: heard about that as a rumour, but never found any kind of 'official confirmation' of that. Have you got any link?
The IRGC requested to build missiles with a range of 4.000 to 5.000 km. Khamenei denied that request and limited the range to 2.000 km. Out of respect for the Europeans, as he didn't want them to feel threatend.
Ali Khamenei is an interesting figure, notwithstanding his responsibility for the atrocities against his people. He was pushed into his role and somehow managed to navigate and survive a lion’s den. He didn’t want to become Supreme Leader and rejected his nomination, declaring that he is just a mid-rank cleric and lacks the (religious) qualification and authority to be Rahbar. But Rafsanjani played kingmaker and forced it upon him, planning on using him instead of ruling himself. He was only meant to be Supreme Leader for an interim period, until a rederendum is made, but as the old German adage goes: “Das Provisium hält am längsten.” (Nothing is more definitive, than the temporary.)
But he didn’t let himself be played and used as puppet. He took over the reigns and enabled or blocked Rafsanjani (like many others) as he saw fit, like how he ended his campaign for the merger of the IRGC and Artesh shortly after the first initial steps, for one major example.
He also didn’t want his son to succeed him, probably knowing full well or assuming, that he will just be a puppet and at the mercy of the IRGC.
For the record: The USS Tripoli (LHA-7) do not carry LCAC or such things as it's do not have well deck. The USS America (LHA-6) and the USS Tripoli is the two "air-oriented" LHA within the USA America class, which means they exchange their well deck for more hangar space to bring more F-35B's and MV-22's...
This is right only for this two ships as the decision makers hit the brake and reverse gear to bring back the well deck from the USS Bougainville (LHA-8) and the later ships of the USS America class.
Obe theory is to use the marines to takeover bandar abbas airport , then use bandar abbas to bri g in more troops that will spread out and clear the land coastal area overseeng hormuz strait . Thus hormuz is openec by driving out iranian from the coast of hormuz. Hows that ?
What comes after? Other than WW2 perhaps, the U.S. is not very good at occupying the territory of a foreign nation. As I think you stated in a previous, but recent, Substack post, the spectre of NATIONALISM always arises.
Foremost the same spectre of racism and religious intollerance - that is the fundamental reason for this war, too.
In Afghanistan, this grew so much, the generals were forced to abandon the 'hearts & minds' campaign because the troops were refusing to follow orders.
I keep wondering if Iran doesn't have a fallback use for all that enriched Uranium. A radiological warhead. Of course in that event I doubt if Israel would restrain itself from lobbing a nuke at Tehran. Things can get a lot worse.
I'm sure they could, but for a "dirty bomb" type effect, Iran could just hit the Dimona reactor itself. More sense to keep the HEU in reserve for a crude bomb.
The escalatory pattern so far has been that Israel almost always goes first. Israeli leadership seems to confuse simply escalating with having escalation dominance. The problem is Iran's "pain threshold" is higher.
I am thinking of a small HEU warhead on one of their missiles. Even if intercepted the debris would constitute a huge problem. If the debris settles on a city...
Hitting Dimona and actually breaching what must be very substantial containment, is a challenge of a different order.
Yes, I thought so too, but asking an expert in these matters, apparently some of Iran's more heavy throw-weight missiles could do it. Perhaps a puzzler for Tom to verify though.
How much HEU scattered round an urban environment would it need to render the area uninhabitable for a very long time. I think that the only restraint on this tactic would be the anticipated Israeli response...
There are reports, that up to SM-6 missiles are/were used to intercept Shahed drones. Depending on the buyer, a SM-6 apparently costs between 5 and 8 Mio. US dollars.
I will make an unofficial statement for the IRGC: The Shahed drone is the best drone in the world, and very strongly at that. It has the highest accuracy ever, and hitting both: 100 % of its strategic targets and intercepting every single sophisticated interceptor missile. Thank you for your attention in this matter.
The Islamic regime has rebuked statements, that the Strait of Hormuz is blocked: It is open to all but enemy-linked ships.
Apparently, the biggest civilian casualty in Bahrain, was the so called Mahazza incident on March 9, which was blamed on Iran. It was instead a misfired US-operated Patriot, according to Reuters.
In a recent interview, the CEO of Rheinmetall stated that three weeks into the war, interceptors in the region are critically low and could be empty at this pace in four more weeks.
Netanjahu and Katz have ordered the quick demolition of all homes in the southern villages of Lebanon and destruction of bridges.
The "Hannibal order" is a different one from the "human shield" topic the Israeli SC/judiciary discussing about liabilties of the IDF and its personnel Tom?
ICC indicted Bibi Netanyahu is qouted talking about "Thursday" as an important date next week?
Hatred of the Arabs started and accumulated eight decades ago, when Israel started with ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and Arabs, robbing them of their land and forcing them into concentration camps. Analog hatred towards the US/EU for enabling, facilitating, supporting and protecting Israeli aggression, while lying to be interested in peace.
The solution is super simple: Abolishing the uncompromising and unconditional Israel First policy in the US and EU. Treating Israel like any other country in the world, making support conditional and forcing them to compromises.
Probably the same strategy that has been used since the 1980s, if not longer: Sunni identitarianism (anti-Shi'a Takfirism) for the Arab majority lumpenproletariat, and the corruption/secularization of the Arab elites. The progress of the Abraham Accords during the genocide is already ample evidence that they believe in nothing, and that their populations can be forced to acquiesce in almost anything. Still, as the Kuwaiti blue-on-blue shows, there may be limits..
Your comment is a good illustration of Israeli intention to create weak Arabian states around Israel by the means of wars and provocations towards "Arabian lumpen proletariat". The idea of Israel is fascist. Why not leave Arabs in peace and return to UNO-acknowledged borders?
I think you answered your own question in the preceding sentence. If the very idea of the state is fascistic (and moreover a fascism of a minority ethno-religious group in the region) they cannot live at peace with the region.
The Abraham Accord are just PR BS. Yes it corrupts some/most of the Arab elites, but it doesn't change an inch about the mood of the population. It just drives a wedge between the common people and the ruling elites, which in a worst case will topple the rulers (for example Iran 1979).
It is true insanity. The sooner Trump and Netanyahu meet their "maker"...who must be Satan...since this is a term the religious right-wingers will be familiar with, the better for the world. The US is looking and acting more and more like Putin and Russia every day.
Thanks
Meanwhile, they are exchanging ultimatums for even more mutual destruction (Iran's power grid vs basically everything worth anything in the rest of Middle East). And the rest of the world is just watching silently.
Silence can be a very deceptice form of peace.
Targeting the power grid in a tit-for-tat strategy is lunatic.
Just imagine. Iran has around 400+ power plants. The GCC countries have around 40 and depend on them for their desalination plants. Not to mention the UAE runs a nuclear power plant as well.
So if Trump doesn't chicken out and destroys 10% of Irans powerplants, the Iranies tit-for-tat may cause total catastrophic damage to the gulf countries by cutting water supply with no chance of timely repairs.
Exactly. The worst part of it - even if trump does realise the consequences (probably someone at least tried to explain them to him), he is still too self-centered to care. At this point, I won't be too surprised if in a week (after making this catastrophe reality) he starts threatening to nuke Iran next (as if that would "fix" anything, considering the Hormuz strait won't be much use to anyone anymore by then, no matter how "open").
What's more: both the Iran's power grid and Iran's gas grid are more resilient than the mass of power- and gas grids in the EU. Results in a situation where, regardless how mountainous their homeland might be, average Iranians can reach back upon the same volume of power like average EU-citizens.
Trump is the new Saddam. An idiot (or puppet, or both) being played off against Iran for the benefit of third parties.
Your conclusions are well thought through and evidential, thank you.
However there is sadly a bit of false equivalence with Israel and Iran. You started looking at theory so let’s stay there. Israel assassinated nuclear scientists, family was collateral. Iran just lobs a big bomb at a civilian town linked to a nuclear facility.
This is of course a matter of capability - Iran isn’t able to do what Israel does and perhaps might if it could. It is nonetheless very different. You might as well say Ukraine is the same as Russia because it kills civilians hanging around near ammo depots.
Nope. It was not just 'family was collateral'. Over 1,000 civilians were massacred in Israel's bombardment of apartments of specific scientists (and political- and military leaders), and over 5,000 wounded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Twelve-Day_War).
Essentially, the Israelis were bombing out entire apartment buildings - even entire streets full of apartment buildings and occupied cars - in complete disregard for the safety of the people living there.
This is no matter of capability: just like Iranian missiles are not precise enough to target specific apartments or homes, the Israeli weapons are, but the Israelis simply do not care.
(...or, if asked if they care, the IDF explains it's targeting is done by the AI, and AI said the collateral damage is OK... where, actually, there is always a 'man-in-the-loop' even with the AI, i.e. there is somebody who is rising or lowering the 'acceptable level of collateral damage' for the AI.)
I cannot but repeat it: learn to drop the double standards. What's valid for one side is valid for the other too - even more so if one of parties has the capability to either avoid or significantly reduce the 'collateral damage', but simply does not care to do so (or, even worse: is intentionally causing these), and then also has a history of using human shields (while blaming others of doing that).
You are much more knowledgeable than me of course, you are the expert, I am not.
However I still cannot see what you claim. Israel bomb an apartment to kill a target (with lots of collateral). Iran lob a bomb at a town that might terrorise some civilians and never kills anyone ‘important’.
Perhaps you could be more specific and show me which specific apartment (verified by you or other non Iranian sources) were destroyed without a specific target in mind?
It’s important you understand that this is relative morality and of course I believe that both sides are committing war crimes. I am not right wing defender of anything Israel does. However one side (Iran) is clearly worse it seems from the evidence.
To really 'show' you everything, would need an extra feature - because one can't attach all the related illustrations (showing similar levels of damage by Israeli bombardment like the Gaza Strip, or half a street blown up - together with doznes of occupied cars - and similar) to 'reader's comments' on the Substack.
Re. 'relative morality': drop double standards.
Treat everybody as equal.
Consider every single Iranian civilian killed the same like every single Israeli killed.
Right now, the mass of 'the West' is considering it 'sad' when even two IDF soldiers get killed during Israel's renewed invasion of Lebanon: nobody cares about Israel's ruining of Lebanon for 55 years, about IDF troops refusing to talk about 'Lebanon' because they do not consider it a sovereign country (at most it's future 'Lebensraum'), nobody cares about Israeli real-estate companies already offering pieces of real estate in Lebanon for sale... and even less so about yet another violation of Lebanese sovereignty. All in the name of 'Israel has the right to exist' and 'Israel has the right to defend itself'... And the 900+ Lebanese civilians massacred by Israeli bombs... are what?
They're not even mentioned as such. Must've died on their own... 🙄
That much about 'relative morality'...
You may be surprised but I agree with everything in your reply. It is terrible that double standards are applied with regards to IDF soldiers in Lebanon or the country itself (which by the way would be more stable if it could get rid of Hezbollah without Israeli interference).
Nonetheless that does not damage the concept of relative morality. In war some crimes are worse than others and in examining Iran vs Israel, the evidence and rhetoric suggests Iran is worse. When examining other conflicts involving Israel, we be might say Israel is worse but this is about this conflict. Remember it is still Irans stated aim to destroy or enslave every Jew while the Israelis have too many enemies to bothering hating any one overtly.
Sorry, but it is not so difficult from my perspective. Consider the casualties in Gaza of the last few years and the fact that around 50% of the population in Gaza is below the age of 16 (or 18).
Now: How many kids were killed by Israel per day? What explanations of moral in terms of killing civilians is necessary to describe Israel’s approach?
In that particular conflict, Israel is more evil. That however is irrelevant whataboutery as we are not talking about that conflict.
Please explain to me the difference in your mind about lobbing a Missile into a Town - and Blowing up series of Apartment buildings in a Town - Whats the difference ? Is it the randomness you object to ? Because the end result is exactly the same right ?
The difference is the objective. If a legitimate target like a terrorist leader or an Iranian Nuclear scientist is hiding there then blowing up the building is wrong but it’s far less wrong than simply blowing up the building because you can. This is not too dissimilar to what Russia are doing in Kyiv.
I am kind of curious now - what in your mind is the actual moral difference between say the KSA and Iran . Both are effectively Theocracies of a sort - one with an actual King , the other without ( currently ) . Both would and do happily slaughter their own citizens , either protestors or by public executions . Both have systems of morality vastly opposed to that of the West . One is coddled up to the West currently and the other less so . What's the difference ? Is it just that Iran won't comply ?
KSA and Iran are both terrible regimes and I would agree that it is hypocritical for the west to cozy up to KSA in the way that they do. Also not really sure what that has to do with the topic at hand.
"Remember it is still Irans stated aim to destroy or enslave every Jew."
No it isn't. You are just a wide-eyed credulous retard who uncritically accepts whatever you are told, even when it's stupid or illogical.
The mentioned strike on the street and buildings in Tehran in the 12-Day War: https://x.com/i/status/1941205384296886484
https://www.misbar.com/amp/en/editorial/2025/07/16/israel-struck-iranian-residential-areas-without-warning
What is the value of that "relative morality" of yours? What purpose does it serve? Helping to convince yourself to take a "less evil" side when both (all) sides are undoubtedly evil? Mass-murdering civilians is mass-murdering civilians. Motivation doesn't change anything. In the end, killing 999 random people while targeting 1 specific person is the same as just killing 1000 random people because you can.
Relative morality is a path to something better. One should always seek to offer qualified support to the lesser of two evils.
If Israel succeed (and it’s likely they won’t as Tom succinctly argues in his article), then the world will be a better place without one of the worst regimes in the world - the Iranian theocracy. That would be better for its people and the wider world.
Similarly in other conflicts involving Israel we can take a different view, for example we can hope that Israel fails in any invasion of Lebanon.
If you are proposing to support the lesser evil then you can no longer limit your comparison to the harm Israel and Iran inflict upon each other (which in any case I suspect puts Israel in the worse light). You then have to take into account all their crimes. As Tom has pointed out, Israel's, in total, are much worse than Iran's. You also have to take into account your ability to influence them. None of us has any ability to stop Iran's terrible regime from killing 30,000 of its unhappy citizens, but it wouldn't take much to stop assisting Israel in its crimes.
There’s a lot of assumptions here.
1. A well thought through campaign (not this incompetent Trump one) could have stopped Iran slaughtering its own people.
2. Iran is far worse based on evidence we have than Iran in totality
3. Israel’s people support its form of govt even if many inside and out detest Netanyahu whereas regime change is desirable in Iran. Israel’s war crimes could heeled in by a change of party in govt, which like Iran.
No it is not. Relative morality is just another hypocritical buzzword for double standards.
Yes that theocracy in Iran is murderous and corrupt and doesn't care too much about the well being of it's own population, but that isn't a free ticket for Israel or the USA to do whatever they like to do.
I spent more than enough time of my life in the Near East to see with my owns eyes (not to talk about what my UN comrades told me) the fanatism of some Israeli people, the daily discrimination against Palestinians and it has become worse of the years.
This all creates just hate over hate and the bill isn't paid by just the responsible guilty ones, but by the common people.
Death and destruction don't care about gender, age or ethnicity. In the end they all are just victims, because of some ruthless, bloodthirsty idiots.
Relative morality is the only way forward. You can stick your fingers in your ears or shout at everyone or you can slowly try to influence a complicated conflict where everyone has blood on their hands in the right way. The right way means getting your hands dirty and accepting difficult compromise. The wrong way means useless protesting and feeling good about ourselves and trying to elect naive so called ‘anti-war’ politicians
Unbelievable . Seriously maybe look in to the actual history of Iran and see how it got to this place due to the constant violent interference of the West . Iran as it exists now is entirely the fault of the West/Israel - and here you are hating away and claiming the Israeli's are somehow morally superior . Explain how the position we are in now is morally preferable to one where the Iranians handed over all their enriched uranium and we had a peace deal . Is the violent death of the current Theocracy all that concerns you ? .
The history of interference on Iran (not just western) is terrible as you say.
Obama’s peace deal was as you imply far better than this war. In case you hadn’t noticed I agree with Toms conclusions and only disputed done false equivalence. This war looks like it will make everything worse.
Nonetheless it remains true that the current Iranian regime is worse than almost any other govt in the world and far worse than Israel. I do not mourn the leaders in the regime that have been killed - the world is a better place without them but I do mourn the clear path of destruction and failure that this war is taking.
Iran will be rich like KSA if no sanctions has been imposed on them since they have a better human capital. Why people do not take to streets in KSA and Qatar, because they are rich. If they choose that path KSA and Qatar will be much more brutal in their treatment. Why Iran face sanctions sole reason is they oppose Israel. Lol as west care about moral and Saudis have better morals than Iranians.
He means that Israel's collateral damage is sometimes on purpose, and Israel doesn't care anyhow, as the mass murder in Gaza and the attacks on Lebanon show. So there is no false equivalence, in my view.
Lol, part of their official military doctrine ist called "Collective Punishment".
Israel carpet bombed civilians in Gaza for two years straight. Every conflict Israel gets in has a civilian to combatant death ratio that would make Genghis Khan blush. Israelis have killed around 1000 people in Lebanon in the last few weeks alone, at least 118 of which were children. Even their nasty little pager attack showed a wanton disregard for civilian safety. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think Israel gives a fuck about collateral damage or civilians. Good grief.
Civilians hanging around ammo depo ... ok sir , they chilling having a beer
Ridiculous, but this is exactly the same number Jews who are in power in Ukraine wrote in favor of Zelensky during the same Zelensky elections in 2019, 73% LOL.
Thank you for the update. Sad as it is to read the situation. And maybe the saddest thing of it was the survey on the Israelis attitude to civilians. This does not bode well for civilians in Lebanon and Iran, and of course indirectly Israeli civilians. Regarding invasion of the Kark islands, it is not difficult to find analysis’ that supports the idea and are anxiously waiting for those 2000+ marines charging in over the island. Overwhelming the demoralized weak Iranian defenders. And the this will force the regime to collapse because then it cannot get any income. I think they haven’t understood that from the Iranian point of view there is no possibility of negotiation. They will be attacked again and again. So Iran has no option but resist. And when those brave 2000 + marines have secured the island what are they then going to do? Costly and difficult to support them.
Actually no guarantee that the marines would be successful taking over the island.
You are probably right. I don’t expect them to try either.
Two question on the war: The Gerald Ford is withdrawing from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean ((Crete? Cyprus location doesn’t matter) after a fire on board and other problems. 1) Is that having any military effect on the war? 2) Isn’t it risky to go through the Suez Canal now? Sitting duck so to speak. And closer to Iran than Diego Garcia is….
Nope, no direct effects. The USAF has deployed more than 50 additional combat- and combat-support aircraft the Middle East, this week alone. Moreover, France is now granting permission for USAF bombers based in the UK to use its airspace.
Re Suez Canal: is one of best-protected pieces of real estate in all of Egypt. Particularly so whenever a USN warship is passing it.
Ok, only an embarrassment then. Should have withdrawn earlier probably.
Thanks Tom, a true masterpiece of structured analytics without cheering ! Very scarce approach these days in MSM
Tom, I can't reach many .ir websites right now, but with "IRGC top strategist" you could mean Hassan Abbasi? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Abbasi
He wrote, among others, about the "Indian Ocean and the Security of Three Continents" (اقیانوس هند و امنیت پیرامون سه قاره), but it is hard to access, as it was probably just limited to his lectures at Imam Hossein University.
Maybe his article was put down, as apparently Khamenei Senior forbad the use of missiles with more than 2.000 km range?
On a side note, since you mentioned Lebanon: Despite the fact that the Syrian government is running an appeasement strategy towards Israel, they were attacked to.
Thanks for the link. Seems like a very interesting chap. An Iranian "Dugin"?
Yes, it was Abbasi.
Re. Khamenei prohibiting missiles with longer range: heard about that as a rumour, but never found any kind of 'official confirmation' of that. Have you got any link?
Even a video of him: https://www.entekhab.ir/fa/news/622976/
The IRGC requested to build missiles with a range of 4.000 to 5.000 km. Khamenei denied that request and limited the range to 2.000 km. Out of respect for the Europeans, as he didn't want them to feel threatend.
Thx. Really surprised to hear/read this.
Ali Khamenei is an interesting figure, notwithstanding his responsibility for the atrocities against his people. He was pushed into his role and somehow managed to navigate and survive a lion’s den. He didn’t want to become Supreme Leader and rejected his nomination, declaring that he is just a mid-rank cleric and lacks the (religious) qualification and authority to be Rahbar. But Rafsanjani played kingmaker and forced it upon him, planning on using him instead of ruling himself. He was only meant to be Supreme Leader for an interim period, until a rederendum is made, but as the old German adage goes: “Das Provisium hält am längsten.” (Nothing is more definitive, than the temporary.)
But he didn’t let himself be played and used as puppet. He took over the reigns and enabled or blocked Rafsanjani (like many others) as he saw fit, like how he ended his campaign for the merger of the IRGC and Artesh shortly after the first initial steps, for one major example.
He also didn’t want his son to succeed him, probably knowing full well or assuming, that he will just be a puppet and at the mercy of the IRGC.
Don't forget the most crucial military objective of them all - keeping the USA's population distracted from the Epstein Files.
For the record: The USS Tripoli (LHA-7) do not carry LCAC or such things as it's do not have well deck. The USS America (LHA-6) and the USS Tripoli is the two "air-oriented" LHA within the USA America class, which means they exchange their well deck for more hangar space to bring more F-35B's and MV-22's...
This is right only for this two ships as the decision makers hit the brake and reverse gear to bring back the well deck from the USS Bougainville (LHA-8) and the later ships of the USS America class.
Ah yes: the new LHAs are different to earlier LHDs. Thanks for a heads-up on this!
Obe theory is to use the marines to takeover bandar abbas airport , then use bandar abbas to bri g in more troops that will spread out and clear the land coastal area overseeng hormuz strait . Thus hormuz is openec by driving out iranian from the coast of hormuz. Hows that ?
As said, the US military might should be able to do that.
Where one can be sure the same might is going to fail - is what comes after.
What comes after? Other than WW2 perhaps, the U.S. is not very good at occupying the territory of a foreign nation. As I think you stated in a previous, but recent, Substack post, the spectre of NATIONALISM always arises.
Foremost the same spectre of racism and religious intollerance - that is the fundamental reason for this war, too.
In Afghanistan, this grew so much, the generals were forced to abandon the 'hearts & minds' campaign because the troops were refusing to follow orders.
I keep wondering if Iran doesn't have a fallback use for all that enriched Uranium. A radiological warhead. Of course in that event I doubt if Israel would restrain itself from lobbing a nuke at Tehran. Things can get a lot worse.
The only use for the HEU was always as a bargaining chip, a leverage to haggle down in negotiations.
I'm sure they could, but for a "dirty bomb" type effect, Iran could just hit the Dimona reactor itself. More sense to keep the HEU in reserve for a crude bomb.
The escalatory pattern so far has been that Israel almost always goes first. Israeli leadership seems to confuse simply escalating with having escalation dominance. The problem is Iran's "pain threshold" is higher.
I am thinking of a small HEU warhead on one of their missiles. Even if intercepted the debris would constitute a huge problem. If the debris settles on a city...
Hitting Dimona and actually breaching what must be very substantial containment, is a challenge of a different order.
Yes, I thought so too, but asking an expert in these matters, apparently some of Iran's more heavy throw-weight missiles could do it. Perhaps a puzzler for Tom to verify though.
How much HEU scattered round an urban environment would it need to render the area uninhabitable for a very long time. I think that the only restraint on this tactic would be the anticipated Israeli response...
Some tidbits:
A video ist floating around, claiming to show a hit on a F-15 around the Hormuz area: https://packaged-media.redd.it/8i1ufljzikqg1/pb/m2-res_360p.mp4?m=DASHPlaylist.mpd&var=sgpssan&v=1&e=1774195200&s=faa12ab488cb6b7c98e5033ec0402152f07b458c (from Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/)
There are reports, that up to SM-6 missiles are/were used to intercept Shahed drones. Depending on the buyer, a SM-6 apparently costs between 5 and 8 Mio. US dollars.
I will make an unofficial statement for the IRGC: The Shahed drone is the best drone in the world, and very strongly at that. It has the highest accuracy ever, and hitting both: 100 % of its strategic targets and intercepting every single sophisticated interceptor missile. Thank you for your attention in this matter.
The Islamic regime has rebuked statements, that the Strait of Hormuz is blocked: It is open to all but enemy-linked ships.
Apparently, the biggest civilian casualty in Bahrain, was the so called Mahazza incident on March 9, which was blamed on Iran. It was instead a misfired US-operated Patriot, according to Reuters.
In a recent interview, the CEO of Rheinmetall stated that three weeks into the war, interceptors in the region are critically low and could be empty at this pace in four more weeks.
Netanjahu and Katz have ordered the quick demolition of all homes in the southern villages of Lebanon and destruction of bridges.
The "Hannibal order" is a different one from the "human shield" topic the Israeli SC/judiciary discussing about liabilties of the IDF and its personnel Tom?
ICC indicted Bibi Netanyahu is qouted talking about "Thursday" as an important date next week?
The obvious result of Israeli-USA aggression is the growing hatred of the whole Arabian population towards Israel. Any ideas how to manage this?
Hatred of the Arabs started and accumulated eight decades ago, when Israel started with ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and Arabs, robbing them of their land and forcing them into concentration camps. Analog hatred towards the US/EU for enabling, facilitating, supporting and protecting Israeli aggression, while lying to be interested in peace.
The solution is super simple: Abolishing the uncompromising and unconditional Israel First policy in the US and EU. Treating Israel like any other country in the world, making support conditional and forcing them to compromises.
Probably the same strategy that has been used since the 1980s, if not longer: Sunni identitarianism (anti-Shi'a Takfirism) for the Arab majority lumpenproletariat, and the corruption/secularization of the Arab elites. The progress of the Abraham Accords during the genocide is already ample evidence that they believe in nothing, and that their populations can be forced to acquiesce in almost anything. Still, as the Kuwaiti blue-on-blue shows, there may be limits..
Your comment is a good illustration of Israeli intention to create weak Arabian states around Israel by the means of wars and provocations towards "Arabian lumpen proletariat". The idea of Israel is fascist. Why not leave Arabs in peace and return to UNO-acknowledged borders?
Because there are no UNO-acknowledged borders regarding Israel. The very beginning was just a proposal (also stated by Tom lately).
I think you answered your own question in the preceding sentence. If the very idea of the state is fascistic (and moreover a fascism of a minority ethno-religious group in the region) they cannot live at peace with the region.
The Abraham Accord are just PR BS. Yes it corrupts some/most of the Arab elites, but it doesn't change an inch about the mood of the population. It just drives a wedge between the common people and the ruling elites, which in a worst case will topple the rulers (for example Iran 1979).
I mean hatred of the Israelis is becoming a world wide phenomenon now I think - not just the Arabs .
It is true insanity. The sooner Trump and Netanyahu meet their "maker"...who must be Satan...since this is a term the religious right-wingers will be familiar with, the better for the world. The US is looking and acting more and more like Putin and Russia every day.