Khamenei’s Nuclear Fatwa is just PRBS. In civil use it's useful to enriching uranium to 20% only. Any enrichment after that is preparation for nuclear bomb. So, Iran was making all the necessary parts of nuke bomb. So, they would spread PRBS "we don't have the bomb", but they plan was to be ready to assemble it asap if they would like to, as Iranian intelligence minister Esmaeil Khatib openly said, see https://apnews.com/article/iran-iran-nuclear-nuclear-weapons-mahmoud-alavi-ali-khamenei-740ae737338af58c71e56649131d73d8 (Fatwa may be changed any time.)
IAEA has no proof, but issued a few warnings that "Iran possesses a large stockpile of enriched uranium that has reached levels close to weapons-grade" and "Iran’s refusal to grant full access to international inspectors has heightened concerns within the agency". So, IAEA cannot blame any country until they see the nuke, but between the lines they say that Iran is going that way.
And I think Saudis would agree with me (at least). That's why they were trying hard to get soem nuclear "cover". Asked U.S. do deploy nukes in Saudi Arabia first, and when US refused, they have made a security pact with Pakistan which allows to use Pakistani nukes to protect them.
so Saudis need a nuclear bomb to enter a nuclear exchange with nuclear Iran but requires zero nukes to face a 300 atomic warhead armed Israel?
This is bullshit argument that assumes that only Israel is allowed to have a nuclear arsenal and so everybody should burn in a nuclear firestorm instead of having a modicum of deterrence
Israel does shy not from bombing everone everywhere on a daily basis , kill children and commit genocide without a problem but they get to have hundreds of nuclear warheads and a missile program that covers the entirety of Europe but no one is allowed to have a deterrence ?
Iran always stated it wanted a nuclear hedge , not actual nuclear arsenal but nuclear capability that would act as a deterrence against Israel which through hindsight we can now say it was an idiotic decision because no onebombs North Korea , they did not go for the bomb and they are suffering for it.
No need to be a Netanyahu style smart ass and pretend they hit Iran 5 minutes before they got the nuke
The Iranian stockpile of 408-460kg (precise amount depends on source) was never 'secret'. Nor was Tehran's intention to obtain capability for full cycle of enrichment.
Re. what would the Saudis agree with: well, now they're first going to agree that, thanks to Israeli aggressions, yes, they need a nuke too. Just to remain on the safe side. Is going to be discussed in the 'Part 2'.
Just simply there's no other reason to to make such amount of high enrich uranium other than military use. Or, maybe they were about some new breaking stuff in cosmetics, like enlarging penises by X-ray and didn't want Dumpf to join in?
Yes, it was (partialy) public, because Iranians are not stupid, it's hard to hide the whole stuff and they used it as a "leverage" in negotiations to lift the sanction, too (which were originally imposed for the terrorism support). And we do not know the hidden part of the "research".
It appears to me that if your only goal is clandestine nukes, you can do with a much smaller program. At present, at least publicly, there is one large reactor (1GWe) two more planned, at least two separate enrichment facilities.... All you need for a bomb is a single, well concealed 100MW (thermal) and no electric power generator. Based on the amount of digging the Iranians have done for their ballistic missile program, they could have created a a few such already ....
The fatwa and related doctrine was simultaneously PR, in-line with Islamic just-war theory, and a way of becoming a threshold state to have something to negotiate away for sanctions relief. But let's play devil's advocate and say the IRI really has been working assiduously towards the bomb since 1995, and only the geniuses of Mossad have saved us from this peril.
Israel would still have a strategic edge over a nuclear Iran because of its ABM shield and SLBMs. In a first-strike scenario, Iranian cities are impossible to defend, whereas geographically compact Israel is defensible for at least a few days. And Iran, under sanctions, was very unlikely to close that gap. In fact, a nuclear Iran would only somewhat restore deterrence. (A rare Israeli analyst with integrity, Martin van Creveld, actually said this.) Netanyahu was simply scared of losing the capability to "mow the lawn."
About nuke strikes: that's the situation now, it may change in future radically. US economical power is weakening, so do US sanctions, too. US may implode into a civil war, split into more countries, ... That's why Israelis hawks do what they do. (It does not mean I agree with that.)
Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner ,two hyper-zionists with extremely close personal ties to Netanyahu, for example Netanyahu used to sleep in Jared's room when he was a boy when he visited the Kushners , Kushner and Witkoff never had any experience to deal with Iran (let alone handle nuclear talks) and did not even have an official position within the administration, it was obvious thry were appointed there from day one to sabotage the negotiations and the decision to go to war was made already.
It appears the United State , a global super power with thousands of think tanks and experts needed only the personal openion of Netanyahu to start a global conflict.
i think the CIA would love the LUCAS , easily moved , smuggleed and stored strategic bombarded precision weapon that would allow any sponsored controlled opposition to paralyze and entire nation.
Also I think the LUCAS was invesioned to be an expendable long range strike capability that would be universally adopted by field units to be used like bullets for tactical strikes and support instead for calling for UCAV strikes.
Though the technology is still premature and it is too early to codify its operational employment, one thing though , they were very impressed by what it could achieve for minimal expenditure and effort
If they can make them relative cheap and enough accurate why not. Also in Iran there is a lot of targets which can be destroyed by shahed( planes not in hangars, oil depot, chemistry fabrics) and saved a lot of expensive missiles and also maybe forced Iran to use it air defence on cheap target. Of course not as main weapon.
I am sceptical, because the LUCAS is a 1:1 copy. I doubt that the Shahed is the pinnacle of kamikaze drone designs and looking at US drone technology, they should have been able to come up with something better at the same cost.
The Shahed is perfect for the asymmetric doctrine of Iran and its proxies. Both have limited financial means to field conventional weapons in sizable numbers. The proxies can't operate a sizable industry infrastructure and Iran only limited. Both cannot protect their infrastructure. A Shahed can be industrially produced or in a garage.
The US has none of this problems and the main reason why so many US weapons are so over the top expensive, is the political problem of corruption. The US military industry is knowingly screwing the government and taxpayer.
But your point is still valid. Maybe we will see one day a mother ship with swarms of kamikaze drones, like the Chinese Jiu Tian.
It was a mistake for the Iranians not going for the bomb, full throttle. They were accustomed to four decades of "conventional" US politics and presidents, doing everything for Israel, shy of a full-scale war. Knowing full well, that only regime-change can be at the end of the war and even in the best case, the costs would be exorbitant and the consequences unpredictable gambling.
If the current regimes survives and considering that Mojtaba Khamenei is a puppet of the IRGC, I would expect them to anounce a nuclear weapon (capability) in a couple of months.
On a side note: Probably hyperbole and just coincidence. But a month ago, there was a ca. 4.1 earthquake close to Dimona and just two weeks ago on around the same scale in southern Iran.
They wouldn't need to do anything and that's the whole point. Mutually assured destruction is the name of the game. How often have the US attacked North Korea, since they have nukes and the means to deploy them? Would have Russia invaded Ukraine, if they would have kept their nukes?
After walking back from their goal of regime change, the US and Israel are now stating, that every couple of years they are going to bomb everything the Iranians rebuild.
They will think two or ten times about doing this, when Iran is a nuclear weapon state. Then the US is going to negotiate seriously and without demands of absolute capitulation, but mutual compromises. And Israel probably won't bomb the negotiations and everybody will go back to proxy wars at best.
Russia has thousands of nukes and still has to fend off HIMARS, ATACAMS, storm shadows, drones, flamingos, defend Kursk after incursion, defend Moscow etc. Having nukes is no guarantee you wont have to fight a hard conventional battle on your own territory.
But Russia, just as the US and Israel, is the one fighting a war of choice and aggression against Ukraine. Russia can stop anytime they want. My point is, if Ukraine had kept the nuclear weapons, this war wouldn't have happened or on a different scale more comparable to India vs Pakistan, maybe, or even the 12-Day War. Empiric evidence clearly shows, that would be aggressors, are at least much more careful in possible overt military actions against nuclear weapons states.
I can't imagine the Israeli government being THAT stupid.
It's like you are being attacked in your house and instead of using the remaining magazines against the invaders, you empty the magazines on your neighbours. I don't see any logic on this.
I understand that. Those missiles will be launched at the verge of total annihlation of Israel. Evil, inhuman, definitive. But the shock of the holocaust has changed their mind forever. I think that´s the main reason Germany is so subjugated.
Or if, then only in as far as that the Zionists were instrumental in banning the immigration of Jews from Europe to the USA all the time in the 1930s, and well into the 1950s.
They could go for the bomb, but do they have to? They win by surviving, and right now are allowing vessels they select to clear the Strait. And there’s nothing the world’s only superpower can do about it but plead for help from scorned allies and competitors. Iran is driving the bus.
This Israeli doctrine of ruining negotiations is not new, back then they did it not by killing the negotiators but striking even before the negotiations are made, like in the Six days war when the vice president of Egypt was schedule to go to the US to discuss a solution for the crisis and 2 days before that Israel striked Egypt
Strange that all the alt-right Judeo-Christianity theorists have never asked themselves what part killing negotiators and conducting surprise attacks under cover of negotiations is of the vaunted "Western way of war" isn't it..
I'm no fan of the Iranian regime - I have Parsi and Zoroastrian friends - but any country which has oil and no nukes will in due course get a free dose of USAian freedom fries.
First of all, the Iranian regime itself is the primary aggressor in the Middle East. The people of Iraq and Iran will confirm this for you. Especially the Sunni population. You can even ask them what they think of Qasem Soleimani, the IRGC, and Iranian “pilgrims.” Proof of this is the ten thousand victims, including women and children.
Second, the aggression by the United States and Israeli Zionists is partly justified and constitutes a normal response to Iran’s actions in Iraq and Syria, where Iran is plundering resources to advance its own interests. That is, a corridor to the Mediterranean Sea and the destruction of Israel. Although this aggression is justified, something tells me that, as is always the case with the incompetent actions of the U.S. and its dim-witted elite, it will ultimately prove to be completely pointless and remain unfinished, just as it was in Iraq.
I am convinced that the power struggle among the elites in the United States for a spot at the trough will ruin everything. Judging by the actions of the U.S. elites in Syria and Iraq, I realized long ago that there are simply no competent elites left in the U.S. They are always throwing a wrench in each other’s works so that they can win the elections.
Third, Bibi Netanyahu’s government is willing to collaborate with Kremlin assassins, the Assad regime, and the financial swindlers on Trump’s team, and to resort to any killings necessary to achieve its goal of preserving Israel’s power and security. All of them—Trump, Bibi, and Putin—are connected by ties. They spare no expense or other resources to maintain these ties. For Ukraine, this alliance between them also threatens Ukraine’s very existence.
Trump’s plan is obvious—to hand Ukraine over to the Kremlin and try to drive a wedge between Russia and China. It’s also highly beneficial for the security of “holy” Israel, given the support of Putin’s mafia and Trump’s financial swindlers. Similar plans were once proposed by that senile old fool, Henry Kissinger. These are all his plans.
"However, Netanyahu’s ultimate goal is regime change in Iran. He first warned in 1992, when he was a parliamentary member, that Iran was three to five years away from a nuclear bomb. Then in his 1995 book, Fighting Terrorism, Netanyahu warned that Iran was “five to seven years at most” from assembling a nuclear weapon.
In 2006, US General Wesley Clarke received a classified memo outlining a new military strategy of toppling seven countries over five years. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran were again perceived as being hostile to Israel and the US.
Netanyahu appeared before the UN in 2012 where he showed a drawing of how advanced Iran’s nuclear development was and warned that Tehran was less than a year away from a nuclear weapon"
Iran has always directed all its resources specifically toward acquiring nuclear technology and means of delivering nuclear weapons, and that is a fact. Do you think this is a coincidence? And the mass killings of Sunnis in Syria and Iraq prove that this regime is aggressive and utterly dangerous. Iran’s military certainly has limited combat capability, as the wars in Syria and Iraq have shown, but anyone can imagine what would happen if Iran were to attack other countries not with conventional weapons, but with nuclear warheads. As for the Zionists in Israel and Bibi, it is clear that they, too, are willing to commit any atrocity to achieve their goals.
Do you really think that Israel working for decaded to reach this moment by ending all rival regimes in the middile east , ending the Iranian nuclear and missile programs while having 300 nuclear warheads and 100 nuclear tipped Jericho-3 missiles just to protect Sunni Muslims from Nuclear Annihilation?
So in your mind the Jewish state that is genociding Sunni Muslims already is working to be the only nuclear armed nation in region where no other Muslim (Sunni or Sho'a) or Christian for that matter is nuclear armed is the best recipe to protect Sunni Muslims from a hypothetical gencide when an actual real genocide is happening in Gaza?
And that when Netanyahu is publicly speaking about building the the third temple and the return of the Moshiach once Iran is finished?
Do you know what will happen when the Moshiach is summoned? :)))
Israel, the Zionists, and Bibi couldn’t care less about all the Muslims in the world—or anyone else, for that matter. All Israel cares about is its survival in this region. They’re willing to walk over people’s heads and corpses and use any means necessary to survive and strengthen their state. It’s a completely cynical and pragmatic approach. As for the third or even the tenth temple, there is also an ideological and religious war being waged in the Middle East. In reality, all of this is done to unite society and confront the enemy. I doubt that Netanyahu and his entire entourage are believers. It’s all a fairy tale for the masses, who are easily swayed by ideology. Although faith and ideology are two different things, the term “religion” is often used in this sense.
I think I would rather believe a politician setting on a nuclear arsenal when he recites religious texts that specifies the entire annihilation of other people along with their children and animals while practicing those words on live TV.
Any politician with a big red nuclear button speaking about the end times and coming apocalypse can not be taken lightly.
Imagine if the Supreme leader came on TV declaring that all unbelievers should be eradicated along with their children and animals.
I do not think it will be taken lightly and passed like " hey he does not really believe it , he is just talking to his crowd"
What you're talking about applies to both Israel and Iran, as well as the MAGA movement, left-wing fanatics in the West, and Putin's brainwashed idiots. No matter how you look at them, they're all crazy fanatics. In essence, this is in keeping with the spirit of today’s idiocracy and post-truth era, where governments, oligarchs, and the media employ military-style tactics to influence public consciousness, imposing their own paradigm of reality on the population.
Many Ukrainians have taken their families to Europe—those who had the opportunity to do so—while others, on the contrary, remain under fire and ignore calls from the army and volunteers to evacuate, because they are deeply attached to their homeland and their homes. They do this even though it puts their lives at risk. Most of them say, “I was born here, and I’m not going anywhere.”
No one is waiting for those Russian bastards. If there are any, they’re literally just a handful of people who have relatives in Russia. The problem lies with the idiotic Ukrainian authorities, who failed to properly organize the evacuation of the population, as well as with the population itself, which is convinced that no one needs them. For example, my ex-girlfriend, who lived in the city of Izyum, was occupied by the Russian army in 2022. She spent six months under occupation. She was caught in the war while walking home with her son; Russian bullets began flying through the buildings, and then a Grad rocket launcher arrived and opened fire on the city center. Many local residents were killed in the park and near the bus station. People were buried right there in the park. The local mayor, a member of Zelenskyy’s party, fled, abandoning the people to their fate. The Russians took her and her son to Russia, and from there, with the help of volunteers, she traveled to the Baltic states and then to Norway. The first thing the Russian army did in Izyum was to raid all the local stores and distribution centers like a swarm of locusts. I heard the same story from friends in the town of Shevchenkove, which is near Kupiansk.
Ok, only time will show how many wait for Russians.
Anyway, the best thing in your post is the illustration that any Ukranian that that does not want to live in new Russian regions (Novorossia) has no problem to leave Russia (like your girlfriend did).
This only confirm that official UA propaganda about thousands detained UA civilians is a pure BS which is (oh, surprise, surprise) gladly reposted by people like Don.
Is it also "nonsense" that the Russian army of bastards is bombing Ukrainian cities, killing civilians, torturing civilians and prisoners of war, killing prisoners and kidnapping Ukrainian children and giving them to Russian families? This is in addition to the fact that Putin's bastards are giving their army to plunder cities and villages like in the Middle Ages. I hope when we have a really real Ukrainian government, we will kill you all, we will never forget this. When we have nuclear weapons, we will demolish all your cities. We will find you all, you will pay us for everything. And no tolerant corrupt Western shit will stop us.
Yup, the people of Iraq - a country that invaded Iran on 22 September 1980, but is still doing as if it was the other way around - know about Iranian aggression the best...
Ok, so what? Everyone lies in war. Your bias comes out when u imply that Iranians dont just because sometimes they confirm their strikes. Or focus on Israel banning pictures of strikes when its common policy. And anyway, all of this is for what? Only idiots believe Americans/Israelis are doing great in this war and only idiots believe Iran hasnt been hurt quite badly by the attacks.
What im interested in is what you arent writing about here but have the skill to do. What is the current status of the war? How long can iranians sustain their “waves” while US/Israel hunt for TELs and vice versa, how much longer can US/Israel sustain their campaign? How did Kuwaiti dude bring down 3 US planes with 3 shots? How are Gulf states and US defending themselves against the waves - we know its not just Patriot/THAAD but what are they actually using and how effective are they? Would Ukrainian drone interceptors make a difference and how? What is the impact of the hits on Khraag and of the destruction of most of Iranian navy? Was the Iranian ship torpedoed off Indian coast actually unarmed? What does the moving of THAAD from Korea mean for Koreans - what other defenses do they have and how effective are they?
So many things you could be writing about, sharing your knowledge and analysis. Instead, like a freshman in college you run around screaming “you see, one Iranian plane in the air, dirty Israelis have lied again!”. Come on man, you know you can do better.
You do as you did, exercise yet more of online psychoanalysis and jump to conclusion without waiting for the Part 2, thus know better - and, in the future, ignore and avoid. Like pestilence.
Doing the same. Press Page Down and read from there. Unfortunately those are less valuable than his Russo-Ukrainian war reports where he doesn't have bias.
Oh man: would love seeing your reaction to any of my Middle East-related books... ripping away 90% of the content to find the 5% you think might be useful? 😂😂😂
That one Iranian bird is a picture of a unicorn riding a top of a flying elephant , if you do not appreciate a flying F-14 photo in this war you are probably the college freshman
I dont really appreciate any of these photos. I follow this dude mostly to further educate myself in preparation for likely escalations in my region. But unlike majority of online war masturbators, im really not interested in glorifying any of this stuff. Kind of comes naturally when one has actually experienced how it feels to be bombed.
Yes we all follow Tom because there is always gold nuggets that help in studing and researching future events , the venerable F-14s are a global phenomenon and those military historians who studied them for years can relate to the sentiment around them , just like the appreciation of the chivalry of the world war one pilots does not necessarily meam the endorsement for the use of chemical weapons.
You need to follow Tom in other places like ACIG.info to understand what he is talking about , and you will find people who fought in wars and operated such weapons there too , weapons are tools that can be used to kill or protects the innocents , and it is the politicians who send the soldiers to war
Look at the ISW for an accurate and emotion-free assessment of war (without authors writing three paragraphs about "people unfairly call me antisemite" rant). Note that in those particular cases his bias affects his reporting, ISW assesses the current campaign differently: https://understandingwar.org/analysis/middle-east/iran-update/
And yes, people call him that fairly, and it is obvious to everyone on which side he is. Nothing wrong with that by itself - everyone has the right to choose sides - but choosing the side and expecting no one to react on that is naive at least.
ISW are a hawkish, neo-conservative advocacy group funded by US defence contractors. Even a slight investigation shows this and, therefore, it's not suprising that they claim their sponsors primary customers are incredibly successful in using their sponsors products. If you really are concerned about bias then you have to investigate your sources and not just be taken in by the simple slight of hand of neutral language. This blog doesn't hide behind neutral language and I, for one, appreciate that.
I also felt from a beginning, that this was an aggression. And even named it appropriately so in several PL Wikipedia articles on Iranian navy, which I've created in a meantime ;)
(BTW: for Wiki's sake, I'm looking for anyone willing to help, with an access to Jane's Fighting Ships newer than 2020, to scan/photo a few pages...)
Thanks Tom for your indefatigable work. With its slightly downward-canted nose, that silhouette DOES look more like an F-14 than an F-15. Hopefully there is some further corroboration though.
One quibble, Khameinei isn't "the" spiritual leader of all Shi'a, he was more like a principle leader and "the" leader in Iran. There are of course other marja ("sources of emulation"), like Ayatollah Sistani.
The big question on my mind: how is the IRGCN able to exercise its "smart control" over the Strait -- is it reliant on China for SIGINT and targeting? China-Iran oil trade clearly continues, and what's rather weird is that the so-called "ghost tanker" fleet are unscathed. China could be in a position to negotiate peace, or may be forced to intervene. The use of HIMARS to strike critical targets from Gulf countries also seems like a game of chicken. Why not use airstrikes? The GCC are being used, rather unsubtly, as pawns.
The IRGCN "smart control" doctrine was even promoted on Iranian social media. No-one in the Pentagon thought to look. The Special Moron Operation was a big bluff that got called. Or maybe Tucker Carlson was right in his paranoid pronouncements that Israel was, in effect, actually intent on giving the Americans their own Suez.
The more destruction and chaos in the region the more Israel wins , if the GCC are destroyed , for them is a win , that is wealth that was never going to be used on them , the soldiers that died in the Iran-Iraq wa r? Thats troops that are never going to be used against them , so the second gulf war, one less to worry about, every country destroyed , impoverished and disintegrated is a net worth for them , at this rate they will not be the biggest country in the region technologically , militarily and economically, but also the biggest geographically and population wise if they keep on splitting every country and handing each tribe a flag.
And yes regarding the US , they will give them their Suez in time , that a super power that must fall to build up their's at least in the region for the time being.
Even a strategic total defeat for the US would be a historic victory for Israel , all these troops and weapons are being used to secure the Israeli strategic interests instead of sitting around.
Each war cost America more and more and weakens it while strengthening Israel's position in the region , slowly making Israel the regional hegemon controlling the oil and trade routes while the US pays the bills withnot even a thank yoy
Israel can see the writing on the wall for its hegemony over the US Congress. There is no way they are winning back the Millennial-Gen Z demographic and they know it. Their Machiavellian strategy of exploiting white-Muslim tensions in Europe won't work in the US. (There just aren't enough Muslims.)
Before 7/10/23, China had just brokered a rapprochement between Iran and the Saudis. While it is a "conspiracy theory" it is not /impossible/ that Israel actually wants to catalyse the rise of the Petro-yuan and drive the US out of the region. With 20:20 hindsight they are in actual fact doing China a massive favour by giving the IRGCN the opportunity to prove the US' writ doesn't extend that far in the region at all. If apprised of this, China may view Israel as a pragmatic partner. So perhaps it was time to rectify the anomaly that China buys the oil, yet the Carter Doctrine / Neocon influence in the region persists.
The GCC is a more complex problem, because they have been complicit in building the Abrahamic Empire; seems a little premature for Israel to knock them down. Again, one could argue Soleimani's Axis of Resistance strategy played into Israel's hands here by forcing the Sunni Arabs into Netanyahu's arms. But I think that would be a bit uncharitable. As Vali Nasr says, it was a posture of "forward defence." The Houthis and Hezbollah are still providing them that deterrence...
The GCC would not without Israel and Israel would not exist without them , the great Arab revolt of 1916 was based on this arrangement , make us rich and royale and do what ever you like out there , ofcoyrse that policy backfire spectacularly yet it is still maintained, each generation is hoping to escape the inevitable incoming mess and leave it an even more complicated mess to the next generation as a final parting gift.
They gave every kind of concession and sold all their neighbors to delay their fate for as long as they could , they know they will be stamped easily once no one left but them but a after a century (arguably centuries) of this policy they do not know of anything else to be done , they already sold their souls along with the world to the devil like all boomers and have nothing left but to reap the whirlwind.
As for why Israel would want to ruin them ? Easy , the weaker and impoverished a nation the easier for Israel to influence and control , the first principle they worked into the region since day is every one should be weak and impoverished so no one will start to think independently.
Here is what Jabotinsky's iron doctrine says
"Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach."[1]
The only solution to achieve peace and a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, Jabotinsky argued, would be for Jews to first establish a strong Jewish state, which would eventually prompt the Arabs leadership to become moderate, who would be more open to "mutual concessions."
> The use of HIMARS to strike critical targets from Gulf countries also seems like a game of chicken
This appears strategic. Gulf countries, except SA, frowned upon Iran but for long tried to sit on the fence without choosing sides. This is a way to force them off that fence.
Can targeting be so difficult? A big slow tanker probably visible from land. Send out small boats with limpet mines? Don’t think they need advanced targeting systems.
There seem to be contradiction in your post. First you said nuclear fatwa prohibited Iran from building nuclear bomb, and since it is theological sociery it was like a law, but then you said on Feb 27 they agreed to surrender enriched uranium. If they weren't planning to build nukes, what was the purpose they enriching uranium for?
1. You don't need to actually enrich anything in order to bargain. Just saying you're enriching would be enough.
2. If they are enriching and bargaining failed, it seem unlikely they'd just say "well, didn't work, let's try something else" and dump this uranium somewhere.
3. As the current events show, this is a rather risky negotiation strategy, so I wouldn't assess it as being "really good at that".
Just look at the aftermath of the JCPOA exit of the USA.
Iran had only enriched to 3.x % at that time, but announced that they would slowly enrich higher and higher, until someone talked to them again.
And they did, and announced their progress month by month, totally in the open. No secret enrichment.
And Trump and the rest insisted "We must talk about removing all of your ballistic missile program in a nuclear regulation talk." Basically asking Iran to give away all its deterrent options against Israel (as can be seen now). So Iran obviously refused and told, they would like to talk about nuclear things happily, but not about ballistic missiles.
It was mostly a try to rescue the JCPOA by snails-pace escalation to see if the europeans or USA still wanted a deal. Seems the answer has been given by now.
So time went on, and Iran had 400kg enriched to 60%. Thats close enough to race to a bomb in a few months (basically you only have to run the material 4-6 times through the centrifuges to get to 90%).
Well, the US talked to them, as Tom mentioned. And the Iranians offered to dilute their enriched materials. But the US (or Israel) betrayed the negotiations and made facts.
It's pure speculation, if the Iranians would have actually build a bomb. There is no real reason to do that. Basic gun type nuclear bombs are so technically simple that the US did not bother to test them before throwing one out over Japan.
If you have 90% pure Uranium 235, you can just manufacture two metal spheres, around 10-20kg each put them in an improvised explosive device that pushes them together with some explosives and BOOM. You can build that in ANY garage if you have the material. No reason to build one.
It is a different matter if you want an actual nuclear weapons program, with ballistic missile warheads and a steady production to ramp up to hundreds of warheads, sure, or if you want some of the super high yield bombs or hydrogen bombs.
But for a gun type bomb? If you have suicide bombers at hand, it gets easy enough to deploy it, once you have the material in the target area. Put the bomb in a car trunk, drive to Tel Aviv, and your good.
It seem quite bold to claim that US "betrayed" the negotiations unless you have access to some non-public information.
No, it is not speculation. Iran was trying to make itself a regional power, supporting various rebel/terrorist (depending on viewpoint) groups all across Middle East acting as major destabilization force. Iran tried to topple a king in Bahrain at least three times.
Regarding your "did not bother to test" it appears you never heard about Trinity test - it has a wikipedia article. Just saying, maybe there are other things you do not know as well? It is also much more difficult than what you describe (like you can HOLD them together sure even without explosives, but it won't make a boom big enough to bother anyone but you)
Trinity was an implosion device test. That was the design used on Nagasaki. That is more complex, as you need exact timers and spherical explosives. And thats the only way that works with Plutonium.
Little Boy was a gun type design that hit Hiroshima. Thats dead simple, basic nuclear physics 101.
It is basically the Demon Core in a weaponized configuration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core). You just need to be fast enough to push the pieces together so the starting reaction does not blow your bomb apart prematurely, but thats fairly easy for Uranium bombs.
You can add all kinds of fancyness of course, like Berillium reflectors, so you need less Uranium, but if you have plenty like Iran, you can also just add a few more kilograms of U-235.
You do not need a nuclear weapon for regime change in Bahrein.
Sure, Iran dabbled in the same areas as UAE, Israel, Saudi Arabia and others with meddling in other states affairs. Only main difference is the openly declared target Israel. But state sponsored armed groups? Seriously have a look who got armed by UAE, Saudia Arabia et al. Like start in Bosnia, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Lybia and so on.
"A big thank you to the author. Your reviews are consistently accurate and professional. Keep up the great work! Can't wait for more. And by the way... the truth doesn't suit any of the stakeholders in this conflict. Which is exactly why it’s so vital for us—those who oppose this war. Especially here "In our neck of the woods" )))
"Iran could have made its nuke already 20 years ago. It decided not to." - Why would a peaceful country bury its nuclear facilities deep underground? What's the point of a peaceful country incurring such costs? Why would a peaceful country develop and build insanely expensive heavy ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads?
"‘Ayatollah’ Khamenei’s Nuclear Fatwa of 2006 has prohibited Iran from (at least) assembling and possessing nuclear weapons, if not even from developing the same." - Well, Israel also officially denies having nuclear weapons.
"And Iran is an Islamic Republic: a theocracy. Indeed, the very IRGC-regime is insistent it’s ‘acting in the name of God’." - Oh, I find it funny...all the mass murders and other abominations in the world were committed in the name of religions. Communism and Nazism are also religions.
"in the course of all of its inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities, the IAEA has never found evidence for Iran developing or possessing nuclear weapons." - This organization is just as impotent and corrupt as the UN. It's naive to think that these clowns are allowed into military facilities beyond the threshold.
"I’m mentioning it because cold fact is that around 21.14hrs GMT of 27 February this year, the Foreign Minister of Oman, who has served as mediator in US-Israeli- and Iranian negotiations, announced nothing less than that Iran has agreed to surrender its stockpile of enriched uranium." - Have the Iranian government made any public statements about this?
The link doesn't mention anything about the surrender of nuclear materials, only vague promises to "reduce concentrations.".
Do I - really - have to post you all the related links? For example the one by the NSA of the UK, who attended that meeting and confirmed not only the Iranian offer but explicitly stated that there was no argument to go to war?
"Do I - really - have to post you all the related links?" - One is enough, but it must support your claims. The link you provided suggests otherwise.
"the NSA of the UK, who attended that meeting and confirmed not only the Iranian offer" - Paraphrasing someone else's words doesn't guarantee their exact meaning. If official Iran had published this or at least TV broadcast, there wouldn't have been any questions.
***Rule No. 1: video, or it didn’t happen(с)Tom Cooper.
"explicitly stated that there was no argument to go to war?" - The British NSA thinks there's no reason. They're not fighting. But Netanyahu and Dumpf think there is, so they're fighting.
Khamenei’s Nuclear Fatwa is just PRBS. In civil use it's useful to enriching uranium to 20% only. Any enrichment after that is preparation for nuclear bomb. So, Iran was making all the necessary parts of nuke bomb. So, they would spread PRBS "we don't have the bomb", but they plan was to be ready to assemble it asap if they would like to, as Iranian intelligence minister Esmaeil Khatib openly said, see https://apnews.com/article/iran-iran-nuclear-nuclear-weapons-mahmoud-alavi-ali-khamenei-740ae737338af58c71e56649131d73d8 (Fatwa may be changed any time.)
IAEA has no proof, but issued a few warnings that "Iran possesses a large stockpile of enriched uranium that has reached levels close to weapons-grade" and "Iran’s refusal to grant full access to international inspectors has heightened concerns within the agency". So, IAEA cannot blame any country until they see the nuke, but between the lines they say that Iran is going that way.
And I think Saudis would agree with me (at least). That's why they were trying hard to get soem nuclear "cover". Asked U.S. do deploy nukes in Saudi Arabia first, and when US refused, they have made a security pact with Pakistan which allows to use Pakistani nukes to protect them.
so Saudis need a nuclear bomb to enter a nuclear exchange with nuclear Iran but requires zero nukes to face a 300 atomic warhead armed Israel?
This is bullshit argument that assumes that only Israel is allowed to have a nuclear arsenal and so everybody should burn in a nuclear firestorm instead of having a modicum of deterrence
Israel does shy not from bombing everone everywhere on a daily basis , kill children and commit genocide without a problem but they get to have hundreds of nuclear warheads and a missile program that covers the entirety of Europe but no one is allowed to have a deterrence ?
Iran always stated it wanted a nuclear hedge , not actual nuclear arsenal but nuclear capability that would act as a deterrence against Israel which through hindsight we can now say it was an idiotic decision because no onebombs North Korea , they did not go for the bomb and they are suffering for it.
No need to be a Netanyahu style smart ass and pretend they hit Iran 5 minutes before they got the nuke
I think you meant "Israel doesn't shy from bombing everyone..."
>> Khamenei’s Nuclear Fatwa is just PRBS.
And you know that 1000% sure because...?
The Iranian stockpile of 408-460kg (precise amount depends on source) was never 'secret'. Nor was Tehran's intention to obtain capability for full cycle of enrichment.
Re. what would the Saudis agree with: well, now they're first going to agree that, thanks to Israeli aggressions, yes, they need a nuke too. Just to remain on the safe side. Is going to be discussed in the 'Part 2'.
Not to forget Turkey, especially after they have already been called out by Israel, after Iran.
The nuclear rat race is on.
Looking forward to Part 2.
Just simply there's no other reason to to make such amount of high enrich uranium other than military use. Or, maybe they were about some new breaking stuff in cosmetics, like enlarging penises by X-ray and didn't want Dumpf to join in?
Yes, it was (partialy) public, because Iranians are not stupid, it's hard to hide the whole stuff and they used it as a "leverage" in negotiations to lift the sanction, too (which were originally imposed for the terrorism support). And we do not know the hidden part of the "research".
It appears to me that if your only goal is clandestine nukes, you can do with a much smaller program. At present, at least publicly, there is one large reactor (1GWe) two more planned, at least two separate enrichment facilities.... All you need for a bomb is a single, well concealed 100MW (thermal) and no electric power generator. Based on the amount of digging the Iranians have done for their ballistic missile program, they could have created a a few such already ....
The fatwa and related doctrine was simultaneously PR, in-line with Islamic just-war theory, and a way of becoming a threshold state to have something to negotiate away for sanctions relief. But let's play devil's advocate and say the IRI really has been working assiduously towards the bomb since 1995, and only the geniuses of Mossad have saved us from this peril.
Israel would still have a strategic edge over a nuclear Iran because of its ABM shield and SLBMs. In a first-strike scenario, Iranian cities are impossible to defend, whereas geographically compact Israel is defensible for at least a few days. And Iran, under sanctions, was very unlikely to close that gap. In fact, a nuclear Iran would only somewhat restore deterrence. (A rare Israeli analyst with integrity, Martin van Creveld, actually said this.) Netanyahu was simply scared of losing the capability to "mow the lawn."
About nuke strikes: that's the situation now, it may change in future radically. US economical power is weakening, so do US sanctions, too. US may implode into a civil war, split into more countries, ... That's why Israelis hawks do what they do. (It does not mean I agree with that.)
Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner ,two hyper-zionists with extremely close personal ties to Netanyahu, for example Netanyahu used to sleep in Jared's room when he was a boy when he visited the Kushners , Kushner and Witkoff never had any experience to deal with Iran (let alone handle nuclear talks) and did not even have an official position within the administration, it was obvious thry were appointed there from day one to sabotage the negotiations and the decision to go to war was made already.
It appears the United State , a global super power with thousands of think tanks and experts needed only the personal openion of Netanyahu to start a global conflict.
I would put up a claim, that making 1:1 copies of Shahed drones, makes no sense for the US, unless to be used in false-flags operations.
The Shahed doesn't fit the US military doctrine. But what they actually need are cheap anti-drone defence.
i think the CIA would love the LUCAS , easily moved , smuggleed and stored strategic bombarded precision weapon that would allow any sponsored controlled opposition to paralyze and entire nation.
Also I think the LUCAS was invesioned to be an expendable long range strike capability that would be universally adopted by field units to be used like bullets for tactical strikes and support instead for calling for UCAV strikes.
Though the technology is still premature and it is too early to codify its operational employment, one thing though , they were very impressed by what it could achieve for minimal expenditure and effort
If they can make them relative cheap and enough accurate why not. Also in Iran there is a lot of targets which can be destroyed by shahed( planes not in hangars, oil depot, chemistry fabrics) and saved a lot of expensive missiles and also maybe forced Iran to use it air defence on cheap target. Of course not as main weapon.
I am sceptical, because the LUCAS is a 1:1 copy. I doubt that the Shahed is the pinnacle of kamikaze drone designs and looking at US drone technology, they should have been able to come up with something better at the same cost.
The Shahed is perfect for the asymmetric doctrine of Iran and its proxies. Both have limited financial means to field conventional weapons in sizable numbers. The proxies can't operate a sizable industry infrastructure and Iran only limited. Both cannot protect their infrastructure. A Shahed can be industrially produced or in a garage.
The US has none of this problems and the main reason why so many US weapons are so over the top expensive, is the political problem of corruption. The US military industry is knowingly screwing the government and taxpayer.
But your point is still valid. Maybe we will see one day a mother ship with swarms of kamikaze drones, like the Chinese Jiu Tian.
It was a mistake for the Iranians not going for the bomb, full throttle. They were accustomed to four decades of "conventional" US politics and presidents, doing everything for Israel, shy of a full-scale war. Knowing full well, that only regime-change can be at the end of the war and even in the best case, the costs would be exorbitant and the consequences unpredictable gambling.
If the current regimes survives and considering that Mojtaba Khamenei is a puppet of the IRGC, I would expect them to anounce a nuclear weapon (capability) in a couple of months.
On a side note: Probably hyperbole and just coincidence. But a month ago, there was a ca. 4.1 earthquake close to Dimona and just two weeks ago on around the same scale in southern Iran.
And what would they do with a nuke if they had one or two or ten ?
Do you think Israel would refrain from killing 90 million people if an Iranian nuke fell on Tel Aviv ?
They wouldn't need to do anything and that's the whole point. Mutually assured destruction is the name of the game. How often have the US attacked North Korea, since they have nukes and the means to deploy them? Would have Russia invaded Ukraine, if they would have kept their nukes?
After walking back from their goal of regime change, the US and Israel are now stating, that every couple of years they are going to bomb everything the Iranians rebuild.
They will think two or ten times about doing this, when Iran is a nuclear weapon state. Then the US is going to negotiate seriously and without demands of absolute capitulation, but mutual compromises. And Israel probably won't bomb the negotiations and everybody will go back to proxy wars at best.
Russia has thousands of nukes and still has to fend off HIMARS, ATACAMS, storm shadows, drones, flamingos, defend Kursk after incursion, defend Moscow etc. Having nukes is no guarantee you wont have to fight a hard conventional battle on your own territory.
But nukes guarantee there will be no regime change or total surrender withour any conditions
Nukes give you some leverage but people overestimate their usability in modern world.
But Russia, just as the US and Israel, is the one fighting a war of choice and aggression against Ukraine. Russia can stop anytime they want. My point is, if Ukraine had kept the nuclear weapons, this war wouldn't have happened or on a different scale more comparable to India vs Pakistan, maybe, or even the 12-Day War. Empiric evidence clearly shows, that would be aggressors, are at least much more careful in possible overt military actions against nuclear weapons states.
I don't think it matters who started what when it comes to the use of nukes.
My point is, even if Iran had nukes using them to fight off this type of attack would be suicidal.
Foremost: according to Martin van Creveld (one of top Israeli strategists), the majority of Israeli nukes is pointed at Europe.
Free along the motto: 'if we go down, you're going down with us'.
I can't imagine how stupid that is
Yet, that's the reality.
I can't imagine the Israeli government being THAT stupid.
It's like you are being attacked in your house and instead of using the remaining magazines against the invaders, you empty the magazines on your neighbours. I don't see any logic on this.
I understand that. Those missiles will be launched at the verge of total annihlation of Israel. Evil, inhuman, definitive. But the shock of the holocaust has changed their mind forever. I think that´s the main reason Germany is so subjugated.
Zionism has nothing to do with the Holocaust.
Or if, then only in as far as that the Zionists were instrumental in banning the immigration of Jews from Europe to the USA all the time in the 1930s, and well into the 1950s.
And in case of a nuclear war between the US and Russia, the US will nuke China following the same logic.
Usually, the point of nuclear weapons is just to have them so that your enemies think twice before attacking you.
Sure, and after they've had a chance to think about it a few times and they still attack you, what are you going to do ?
They could go for the bomb, but do they have to? They win by surviving, and right now are allowing vessels they select to clear the Strait. And there’s nothing the world’s only superpower can do about it but plead for help from scorned allies and competitors. Iran is driving the bus.
This Israeli doctrine of ruining negotiations is not new, back then they did it not by killing the negotiators but striking even before the negotiations are made, like in the Six days war when the vice president of Egypt was schedule to go to the US to discuss a solution for the crisis and 2 days before that Israel striked Egypt
Strange that all the alt-right Judeo-Christianity theorists have never asked themselves what part killing negotiators and conducting surprise attacks under cover of negotiations is of the vaunted "Western way of war" isn't it..
I'm no fan of the Iranian regime - I have Parsi and Zoroastrian friends - but any country which has oil and no nukes will in due course get a free dose of USAian freedom fries.
First of all, the Iranian regime itself is the primary aggressor in the Middle East. The people of Iraq and Iran will confirm this for you. Especially the Sunni population. You can even ask them what they think of Qasem Soleimani, the IRGC, and Iranian “pilgrims.” Proof of this is the ten thousand victims, including women and children.
Second, the aggression by the United States and Israeli Zionists is partly justified and constitutes a normal response to Iran’s actions in Iraq and Syria, where Iran is plundering resources to advance its own interests. That is, a corridor to the Mediterranean Sea and the destruction of Israel. Although this aggression is justified, something tells me that, as is always the case with the incompetent actions of the U.S. and its dim-witted elite, it will ultimately prove to be completely pointless and remain unfinished, just as it was in Iraq.
I am convinced that the power struggle among the elites in the United States for a spot at the trough will ruin everything. Judging by the actions of the U.S. elites in Syria and Iraq, I realized long ago that there are simply no competent elites left in the U.S. They are always throwing a wrench in each other’s works so that they can win the elections.
Third, Bibi Netanyahu’s government is willing to collaborate with Kremlin assassins, the Assad regime, and the financial swindlers on Trump’s team, and to resort to any killings necessary to achieve its goal of preserving Israel’s power and security. All of them—Trump, Bibi, and Putin—are connected by ties. They spare no expense or other resources to maintain these ties. For Ukraine, this alliance between them also threatens Ukraine’s very existence.
Trump’s plan is obvious—to hand Ukraine over to the Kremlin and try to drive a wedge between Russia and China. It’s also highly beneficial for the security of “holy” Israel, given the support of Putin’s mafia and Trump’s financial swindlers. Similar plans were once proposed by that senile old fool, Henry Kissinger. These are all his plans.
Laughs in Netanyahu :)))
"However, Netanyahu’s ultimate goal is regime change in Iran. He first warned in 1992, when he was a parliamentary member, that Iran was three to five years away from a nuclear bomb. Then in his 1995 book, Fighting Terrorism, Netanyahu warned that Iran was “five to seven years at most” from assembling a nuclear weapon.
In 2006, US General Wesley Clarke received a classified memo outlining a new military strategy of toppling seven countries over five years. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran were again perceived as being hostile to Israel and the US.
Netanyahu appeared before the UN in 2012 where he showed a drawing of how advanced Iran’s nuclear development was and warned that Tehran was less than a year away from a nuclear weapon"
Iran has always directed all its resources specifically toward acquiring nuclear technology and means of delivering nuclear weapons, and that is a fact. Do you think this is a coincidence? And the mass killings of Sunnis in Syria and Iraq prove that this regime is aggressive and utterly dangerous. Iran’s military certainly has limited combat capability, as the wars in Syria and Iraq have shown, but anyone can imagine what would happen if Iran were to attack other countries not with conventional weapons, but with nuclear warheads. As for the Zionists in Israel and Bibi, it is clear that they, too, are willing to commit any atrocity to achieve their goals.
Do you really think that Israel working for decaded to reach this moment by ending all rival regimes in the middile east , ending the Iranian nuclear and missile programs while having 300 nuclear warheads and 100 nuclear tipped Jericho-3 missiles just to protect Sunni Muslims from Nuclear Annihilation?
So in your mind the Jewish state that is genociding Sunni Muslims already is working to be the only nuclear armed nation in region where no other Muslim (Sunni or Sho'a) or Christian for that matter is nuclear armed is the best recipe to protect Sunni Muslims from a hypothetical gencide when an actual real genocide is happening in Gaza?
And that when Netanyahu is publicly speaking about building the the third temple and the return of the Moshiach once Iran is finished?
Do you know what will happen when the Moshiach is summoned? :)))
Israel, the Zionists, and Bibi couldn’t care less about all the Muslims in the world—or anyone else, for that matter. All Israel cares about is its survival in this region. They’re willing to walk over people’s heads and corpses and use any means necessary to survive and strengthen their state. It’s a completely cynical and pragmatic approach. As for the third or even the tenth temple, there is also an ideological and religious war being waged in the Middle East. In reality, all of this is done to unite society and confront the enemy. I doubt that Netanyahu and his entire entourage are believers. It’s all a fairy tale for the masses, who are easily swayed by ideology. Although faith and ideology are two different things, the term “religion” is often used in this sense.
I think I would rather believe a politician setting on a nuclear arsenal when he recites religious texts that specifies the entire annihilation of other people along with their children and animals while practicing those words on live TV.
Any politician with a big red nuclear button speaking about the end times and coming apocalypse can not be taken lightly.
Imagine if the Supreme leader came on TV declaring that all unbelievers should be eradicated along with their children and animals.
I do not think it will be taken lightly and passed like " hey he does not really believe it , he is just talking to his crowd"
What you're talking about applies to both Israel and Iran, as well as the MAGA movement, left-wing fanatics in the West, and Putin's brainwashed idiots. No matter how you look at them, they're all crazy fanatics. In essence, this is in keeping with the spirit of today’s idiocracy and post-truth era, where governments, oligarchs, and the media employ military-style tactics to influence public consciousness, imposing their own paradigm of reality on the population.
Also did Zelensky bring back his family from Israel since the beginning of the the Russian invasion or are they still there with Mindich?
Many Ukrainians have taken their families to Europe—those who had the opportunity to do so—while others, on the contrary, remain under fire and ignore calls from the army and volunteers to evacuate, because they are deeply attached to their homeland and their homes. They do this even though it puts their lives at risk. Most of them say, “I was born here, and I’m not going anywhere.”
"Most of them say, “I was born here, and I’m not going anywhere.”
Most of them waiting for Russians to come or, at least, do not afraid Russians despite all the propaganda
No one is waiting for those Russian bastards. If there are any, they’re literally just a handful of people who have relatives in Russia. The problem lies with the idiotic Ukrainian authorities, who failed to properly organize the evacuation of the population, as well as with the population itself, which is convinced that no one needs them. For example, my ex-girlfriend, who lived in the city of Izyum, was occupied by the Russian army in 2022. She spent six months under occupation. She was caught in the war while walking home with her son; Russian bullets began flying through the buildings, and then a Grad rocket launcher arrived and opened fire on the city center. Many local residents were killed in the park and near the bus station. People were buried right there in the park. The local mayor, a member of Zelenskyy’s party, fled, abandoning the people to their fate. The Russians took her and her son to Russia, and from there, with the help of volunteers, she traveled to the Baltic states and then to Norway. The first thing the Russian army did in Izyum was to raid all the local stores and distribution centers like a swarm of locusts. I heard the same story from friends in the town of Shevchenkove, which is near Kupiansk.
Ok, only time will show how many wait for Russians.
Anyway, the best thing in your post is the illustration that any Ukranian that that does not want to live in new Russian regions (Novorossia) has no problem to leave Russia (like your girlfriend did).
This only confirm that official UA propaganda about thousands detained UA civilians is a pure BS which is (oh, surprise, surprise) gladly reposted by people like Don.
Is it also "nonsense" that the Russian army of bastards is bombing Ukrainian cities, killing civilians, torturing civilians and prisoners of war, killing prisoners and kidnapping Ukrainian children and giving them to Russian families? This is in addition to the fact that Putin's bastards are giving their army to plunder cities and villages like in the Middle Ages. I hope when we have a really real Ukrainian government, we will kill you all, we will never forget this. When we have nuclear weapons, we will demolish all your cities. We will find you all, you will pay us for everything. And no tolerant corrupt Western shit will stop us.
Yup, the people of Iraq - a country that invaded Iran on 22 September 1980, but is still doing as if it was the other way around - know about Iranian aggression the best...
Trump doesn’t have a plan. He has vibes.
Ok, so what? Everyone lies in war. Your bias comes out when u imply that Iranians dont just because sometimes they confirm their strikes. Or focus on Israel banning pictures of strikes when its common policy. And anyway, all of this is for what? Only idiots believe Americans/Israelis are doing great in this war and only idiots believe Iran hasnt been hurt quite badly by the attacks.
What im interested in is what you arent writing about here but have the skill to do. What is the current status of the war? How long can iranians sustain their “waves” while US/Israel hunt for TELs and vice versa, how much longer can US/Israel sustain their campaign? How did Kuwaiti dude bring down 3 US planes with 3 shots? How are Gulf states and US defending themselves against the waves - we know its not just Patriot/THAAD but what are they actually using and how effective are they? Would Ukrainian drone interceptors make a difference and how? What is the impact of the hits on Khraag and of the destruction of most of Iranian navy? Was the Iranian ship torpedoed off Indian coast actually unarmed? What does the moving of THAAD from Korea mean for Koreans - what other defenses do they have and how effective are they?
So many things you could be writing about, sharing your knowledge and analysis. Instead, like a freshman in college you run around screaming “you see, one Iranian plane in the air, dirty Israelis have lied again!”. Come on man, you know you can do better.
Isn't there a simple solution?
You do as you did, exercise yet more of online psychoanalysis and jump to conclusion without waiting for the Part 2, thus know better - and, in the future, ignore and avoid. Like pestilence.
Thanks in advance.
I think not. Your biases might be annoying but your expertise is still valuable. Ill just skip over the most egregious parts.
Doing the same. Press Page Down and read from there. Unfortunately those are less valuable than his Russo-Ukrainian war reports where he doesn't have bias.
Oh man: would love seeing your reaction to any of my Middle East-related books... ripping away 90% of the content to find the 5% you think might be useful? 😂😂😂
Super. Thanks for clearing this. Feel free to return to your echo chamber: I'm happy to help you doing that. Then I can move on.
That one Iranian bird is a picture of a unicorn riding a top of a flying elephant , if you do not appreciate a flying F-14 photo in this war you are probably the college freshman
I dont really appreciate any of these photos. I follow this dude mostly to further educate myself in preparation for likely escalations in my region. But unlike majority of online war masturbators, im really not interested in glorifying any of this stuff. Kind of comes naturally when one has actually experienced how it feels to be bombed.
Yes we all follow Tom because there is always gold nuggets that help in studing and researching future events , the venerable F-14s are a global phenomenon and those military historians who studied them for years can relate to the sentiment around them , just like the appreciation of the chivalry of the world war one pilots does not necessarily meam the endorsement for the use of chemical weapons.
You need to follow Tom in other places like ACIG.info to understand what he is talking about , and you will find people who fought in wars and operated such weapons there too , weapons are tools that can be used to kill or protects the innocents , and it is the politicians who send the soldiers to war
Look at the ISW for an accurate and emotion-free assessment of war (without authors writing three paragraphs about "people unfairly call me antisemite" rant). Note that in those particular cases his bias affects his reporting, ISW assesses the current campaign differently: https://understandingwar.org/analysis/middle-east/iran-update/
And yes, people call him that fairly, and it is obvious to everyone on which side he is. Nothing wrong with that by itself - everyone has the right to choose sides - but choosing the side and expecting no one to react on that is naive at least.
ISW are a hawkish, neo-conservative advocacy group funded by US defence contractors. Even a slight investigation shows this and, therefore, it's not suprising that they claim their sponsors primary customers are incredibly successful in using their sponsors products. If you really are concerned about bias then you have to investigate your sources and not just be taken in by the simple slight of hand of neutral language. This blog doesn't hide behind neutral language and I, for one, appreciate that.
I also felt from a beginning, that this was an aggression. And even named it appropriately so in several PL Wikipedia articles on Iranian navy, which I've created in a meantime ;)
(BTW: for Wiki's sake, I'm looking for anyone willing to help, with an access to Jane's Fighting Ships newer than 2020, to scan/photo a few pages...)
Thanks Tom for your indefatigable work. With its slightly downward-canted nose, that silhouette DOES look more like an F-14 than an F-15. Hopefully there is some further corroboration though.
One quibble, Khameinei isn't "the" spiritual leader of all Shi'a, he was more like a principle leader and "the" leader in Iran. There are of course other marja ("sources of emulation"), like Ayatollah Sistani.
The big question on my mind: how is the IRGCN able to exercise its "smart control" over the Strait -- is it reliant on China for SIGINT and targeting? China-Iran oil trade clearly continues, and what's rather weird is that the so-called "ghost tanker" fleet are unscathed. China could be in a position to negotiate peace, or may be forced to intervene. The use of HIMARS to strike critical targets from Gulf countries also seems like a game of chicken. Why not use airstrikes? The GCC are being used, rather unsubtly, as pawns.
The IRGCN "smart control" doctrine was even promoted on Iranian social media. No-one in the Pentagon thought to look. The Special Moron Operation was a big bluff that got called. Or maybe Tucker Carlson was right in his paranoid pronouncements that Israel was, in effect, actually intent on giving the Americans their own Suez.
The more destruction and chaos in the region the more Israel wins , if the GCC are destroyed , for them is a win , that is wealth that was never going to be used on them , the soldiers that died in the Iran-Iraq wa r? Thats troops that are never going to be used against them , so the second gulf war, one less to worry about, every country destroyed , impoverished and disintegrated is a net worth for them , at this rate they will not be the biggest country in the region technologically , militarily and economically, but also the biggest geographically and population wise if they keep on splitting every country and handing each tribe a flag.
And yes regarding the US , they will give them their Suez in time , that a super power that must fall to build up their's at least in the region for the time being.
Even a strategic total defeat for the US would be a historic victory for Israel , all these troops and weapons are being used to secure the Israeli strategic interests instead of sitting around.
Each war cost America more and more and weakens it while strengthening Israel's position in the region , slowly making Israel the regional hegemon controlling the oil and trade routes while the US pays the bills withnot even a thank yoy
Yes.
Israel can see the writing on the wall for its hegemony over the US Congress. There is no way they are winning back the Millennial-Gen Z demographic and they know it. Their Machiavellian strategy of exploiting white-Muslim tensions in Europe won't work in the US. (There just aren't enough Muslims.)
Before 7/10/23, China had just brokered a rapprochement between Iran and the Saudis. While it is a "conspiracy theory" it is not /impossible/ that Israel actually wants to catalyse the rise of the Petro-yuan and drive the US out of the region. With 20:20 hindsight they are in actual fact doing China a massive favour by giving the IRGCN the opportunity to prove the US' writ doesn't extend that far in the region at all. If apprised of this, China may view Israel as a pragmatic partner. So perhaps it was time to rectify the anomaly that China buys the oil, yet the Carter Doctrine / Neocon influence in the region persists.
The GCC is a more complex problem, because they have been complicit in building the Abrahamic Empire; seems a little premature for Israel to knock them down. Again, one could argue Soleimani's Axis of Resistance strategy played into Israel's hands here by forcing the Sunni Arabs into Netanyahu's arms. But I think that would be a bit uncharitable. As Vali Nasr says, it was a posture of "forward defence." The Houthis and Hezbollah are still providing them that deterrence...
The GCC would not without Israel and Israel would not exist without them , the great Arab revolt of 1916 was based on this arrangement , make us rich and royale and do what ever you like out there , ofcoyrse that policy backfire spectacularly yet it is still maintained, each generation is hoping to escape the inevitable incoming mess and leave it an even more complicated mess to the next generation as a final parting gift.
They gave every kind of concession and sold all their neighbors to delay their fate for as long as they could , they know they will be stamped easily once no one left but them but a after a century (arguably centuries) of this policy they do not know of anything else to be done , they already sold their souls along with the world to the devil like all boomers and have nothing left but to reap the whirlwind.
As for why Israel would want to ruin them ? Easy , the weaker and impoverished a nation the easier for Israel to influence and control , the first principle they worked into the region since day is every one should be weak and impoverished so no one will start to think independently.
Here is what Jabotinsky's iron doctrine says
"Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach."[1]
The only solution to achieve peace and a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, Jabotinsky argued, would be for Jews to first establish a strong Jewish state, which would eventually prompt the Arabs leadership to become moderate, who would be more open to "mutual concessions."
> The use of HIMARS to strike critical targets from Gulf countries also seems like a game of chicken
This appears strategic. Gulf countries, except SA, frowned upon Iran but for long tried to sit on the fence without choosing sides. This is a way to force them off that fence.
Can targeting be so difficult? A big slow tanker probably visible from land. Send out small boats with limpet mines? Don’t think they need advanced targeting systems.
True and actually, I saw least one case, where they used an USV.
There seem to be contradiction in your post. First you said nuclear fatwa prohibited Iran from building nuclear bomb, and since it is theological sociery it was like a law, but then you said on Feb 27 they agreed to surrender enriched uranium. If they weren't planning to build nukes, what was the purpose they enriching uranium for?
Bargaining. They are really good at that in the Middle East.
I disagree for two reasons:
1. You don't need to actually enrich anything in order to bargain. Just saying you're enriching would be enough.
2. If they are enriching and bargaining failed, it seem unlikely they'd just say "well, didn't work, let's try something else" and dump this uranium somewhere.
3. As the current events show, this is a rather risky negotiation strategy, so I wouldn't assess it as being "really good at that".
Just look at the aftermath of the JCPOA exit of the USA.
Iran had only enriched to 3.x % at that time, but announced that they would slowly enrich higher and higher, until someone talked to them again.
And they did, and announced their progress month by month, totally in the open. No secret enrichment.
And Trump and the rest insisted "We must talk about removing all of your ballistic missile program in a nuclear regulation talk." Basically asking Iran to give away all its deterrent options against Israel (as can be seen now). So Iran obviously refused and told, they would like to talk about nuclear things happily, but not about ballistic missiles.
It was mostly a try to rescue the JCPOA by snails-pace escalation to see if the europeans or USA still wanted a deal. Seems the answer has been given by now.
So time went on, and Iran had 400kg enriched to 60%. Thats close enough to race to a bomb in a few months (basically you only have to run the material 4-6 times through the centrifuges to get to 90%).
There are actually civil uses for highly enriched uranium (HEU) for scientific purposes, e.g. the Garching, Munich, Germany reactor runs with 90% enriched uranium to improve neutron flow. The Iranians have a similar research reactor in Teheran, donated by the US (see https://www.straitstimes.com/world/middle-east/how-the-united-states-helped-create-irans-nuclear-programme ).
> Iran had only enriched to 3.x % at that time, but announced that they would slowly enrich higher and higher, until someone talked to them again.
... and if nobody STILL talked to them again, they'd just dump it? or build the bomb? that's my point.
Well, the US talked to them, as Tom mentioned. And the Iranians offered to dilute their enriched materials. But the US (or Israel) betrayed the negotiations and made facts.
It's pure speculation, if the Iranians would have actually build a bomb. There is no real reason to do that. Basic gun type nuclear bombs are so technically simple that the US did not bother to test them before throwing one out over Japan.
If you have 90% pure Uranium 235, you can just manufacture two metal spheres, around 10-20kg each put them in an improvised explosive device that pushes them together with some explosives and BOOM. You can build that in ANY garage if you have the material. No reason to build one.
It is a different matter if you want an actual nuclear weapons program, with ballistic missile warheads and a steady production to ramp up to hundreds of warheads, sure, or if you want some of the super high yield bombs or hydrogen bombs.
But for a gun type bomb? If you have suicide bombers at hand, it gets easy enough to deploy it, once you have the material in the target area. Put the bomb in a car trunk, drive to Tel Aviv, and your good.
It seem quite bold to claim that US "betrayed" the negotiations unless you have access to some non-public information.
No, it is not speculation. Iran was trying to make itself a regional power, supporting various rebel/terrorist (depending on viewpoint) groups all across Middle East acting as major destabilization force. Iran tried to topple a king in Bahrain at least three times.
Regarding your "did not bother to test" it appears you never heard about Trinity test - it has a wikipedia article. Just saying, maybe there are other things you do not know as well? It is also much more difficult than what you describe (like you can HOLD them together sure even without explosives, but it won't make a boom big enough to bother anyone but you)
Trinity was an implosion device test. That was the design used on Nagasaki. That is more complex, as you need exact timers and spherical explosives. And thats the only way that works with Plutonium.
Little Boy was a gun type design that hit Hiroshima. Thats dead simple, basic nuclear physics 101.
See this Manhatten Project info:
https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Science/BombDesign/gun-type.html
It is basically the Demon Core in a weaponized configuration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core). You just need to be fast enough to push the pieces together so the starting reaction does not blow your bomb apart prematurely, but thats fairly easy for Uranium bombs.
You can add all kinds of fancyness of course, like Berillium reflectors, so you need less Uranium, but if you have plenty like Iran, you can also just add a few more kilograms of U-235.
You do not need a nuclear weapon for regime change in Bahrein.
Sure, Iran dabbled in the same areas as UAE, Israel, Saudi Arabia and others with meddling in other states affairs. Only main difference is the openly declared target Israel. But state sponsored armed groups? Seriously have a look who got armed by UAE, Saudia Arabia et al. Like start in Bosnia, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Lybia and so on.
I am following news of this war on Aljazeera, BBC and occasionally, CNN.
To my astonishment, this is the first time ever that you can get more concrete information from the Iranian side than from the US.
Amazing how things change...
Welcome back Tom. Good to see you safe and sound! Here's to more solid military analyses.
Honestly I thought the jet over Isfahan looked like a F-35. Are you just going off the silhouette?
Silhouette & reports by locals.
"A big thank you to the author. Your reviews are consistently accurate and professional. Keep up the great work! Can't wait for more. And by the way... the truth doesn't suit any of the stakeholders in this conflict. Which is exactly why it’s so vital for us—those who oppose this war. Especially here "In our neck of the woods" )))
"Iran could have made its nuke already 20 years ago. It decided not to." - Why would a peaceful country bury its nuclear facilities deep underground? What's the point of a peaceful country incurring such costs? Why would a peaceful country develop and build insanely expensive heavy ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads?
"‘Ayatollah’ Khamenei’s Nuclear Fatwa of 2006 has prohibited Iran from (at least) assembling and possessing nuclear weapons, if not even from developing the same." - Well, Israel also officially denies having nuclear weapons.
"And Iran is an Islamic Republic: a theocracy. Indeed, the very IRGC-regime is insistent it’s ‘acting in the name of God’." - Oh, I find it funny...all the mass murders and other abominations in the world were committed in the name of religions. Communism and Nazism are also religions.
"in the course of all of its inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities, the IAEA has never found evidence for Iran developing or possessing nuclear weapons." - This organization is just as impotent and corrupt as the UN. It's naive to think that these clowns are allowed into military facilities beyond the threshold.
"I’m mentioning it because cold fact is that around 21.14hrs GMT of 27 February this year, the Foreign Minister of Oman, who has served as mediator in US-Israeli- and Iranian negotiations, announced nothing less than that Iran has agreed to surrender its stockpile of enriched uranium." - Have the Iranian government made any public statements about this?
The link doesn't mention anything about the surrender of nuclear materials, only vague promises to "reduce concentrations.".
Do I - really - have to post you all the related links? For example the one by the NSA of the UK, who attended that meeting and confirmed not only the Iranian offer but explicitly stated that there was no argument to go to war?
"Do I - really - have to post you all the related links?" - One is enough, but it must support your claims. The link you provided suggests otherwise.
"the NSA of the UK, who attended that meeting and confirmed not only the Iranian offer" - Paraphrasing someone else's words doesn't guarantee their exact meaning. If official Iran had published this or at least TV broadcast, there wouldn't have been any questions.
***Rule No. 1: video, or it didn’t happen(с)Tom Cooper.
"explicitly stated that there was no argument to go to war?" - The British NSA thinks there's no reason. They're not fighting. But Netanyahu and Dumpf think there is, so they're fighting.