International Iran begins attack on Israel, launching dozens of drones that’ll take hours to arrive

[GhostZ06]

Iran

LMAO

 

[Rod1]

So do you admit that you straw manned me and made up quotes by me?

Nope, it was clearly implicit in your words that it wouldn't be a repeat of 2006.

Can you build and design a car if you don’t have a working battery?

Can you run a car without fuel?

There was no stipulation in the Iran deal which prevented them from developing and designing nuclear weapons systems -

Because designing and developing nuclear weapons is not what separates nuclear states from non-nuclear ones.

only from assembling them fully;

A car with no fuel.

this is an important distinction which you keep running from.

Because not even Bibi cared about it, but somehow you are super focused on it.

 

[Samjj]

Nope, it was clearly implicit in your words that it wouldn't be a repeat of 2006.


Can you run a car without fuel?


Because designing and developing nuclear weapons is not what separates nuclear states from non-nuclear ones.


A car with no fuel.


Because not even Bibi cared about it, but somehow you are super focused on it.

Strawman.

About nukes? Wtf are you talking about?

And no your fuel analogy is not as good but let’s go with it. I can definitely build a lot of cars which will be ready for use once I have my enough fuel after my fuel production limitations are lifted.

Setting limitations on my fuel production does not prevent me from building a car.

 

[Rod1]

Strawman.

Ok.

About nukes? Wtf are you talking about?
And no your fuel analogy is not as good but let’s go with it.

Dude the only reason why Japanese and Nazis didn't had a nuke had nothing to do with weapon design, but the fact that they never

I can definitely build a lot of cars which will be ready for use once I have my enough fuel after my fuel production limitations are lifted.

Indeed, with the little caveat that you first will need to build a refinery and then have the refinery running non-stop for a year to produce enough fuel for a single trip.

Also you can't even test if your engine actually works because you don't have fuel to test them to begin with. Again, you are arguing non-sense here, not even Bibi argued such an idiotic position.

Nobody can make a bomb without fuel, and fuel is hard to make and hard to hide.

after my fuel production limitations are lifted.

Limitations that don't exist today BTW, so what did scrapping the JCPOA even achieved outside of making Iran closer to getting a bomb?

 

[Samjj]

Ok.


Dude the only reason why Japanese and Nazis didn't had a nuke had nothing to do with weapon design, but the fact that they never


Indeed, with the little caveat that you first will need to build a refinery and then have the refinery running non-stop for a year to produce enough fuel for a single trip.

Also you can't even test if your engine actually works because you don't have fuel to test them to begin with. Again, you are arguing non-sense here, not even Bibi argued such an idiotic position.

Nobody can make a bomb without fuel, and fuel is hard to make and hard to hide.


Limitations that don't exist today BTW, so what did scrapping the JCPOA even achieved outside of making Iran closer to getting a bomb?

I have to assume that you’re not from a science background because your analogy for the research and development required for manufacturing nuclear weapons is retarded. Do you think that the U.S. has live tested every variety of nuclear warhead in its arsenal? Absolutely not.

And you absolutely can hide a bomb without fuel, what in the retarded fuck are you talking about? Do you know where Iran keeps all of its ICBMs?

P.s. Nazi Germany and Japan did not have controlled fission reactors fueling electricity to their country, an even greater engineering achievement than nuclear weapons - so your Nazi germany/imperial Japan comparison is even more jackshit retarded. You have no clue what you’re talking about.

 

[Rod1]

I have to assume that you’re not from a science background because your analogy for the research and development required for manufacturing nuclear weapons is retarded. Do you think that the U.S. has live tested every variety of nuclear warhead in its arsenal? Absolutely not.

And you absolutely can hide a bomb without fuel, what in the retarded fuck are you talking about? Do you know where Iran keeps all of its ICBMs?

P.s. Nazi Germany and Japan did not have controlled fission reactors fueling electricity to their country, an even greater engineering achievement than nuclear weapons - so your Nazi germany/imperial Japan comparison is even more jackshit retarded. You have no clue what you’re talking about.

Good thing that the JCPOA was scrapped, now instead of having a breakout time of a year, Iran now has a breakout time of weeks. Great success.

Again, you are literally arguing against the entire world community opinions of the matter simply because Bibi says so, i guess the rest of the world is just too dumb.

 

[Brueskie]

Jews are awesome and the world would be a much better place if all nations were more like Israel.

 

[Samjj]

Good thing that the JCPOA was scrapped, now instead of having a breakout time of a year, Iran now has a breakout time of weeks. Great success.

Again, you are literally arguing against the entire world community opinions of the matter simply because Bibi says so, i guess the rest of the world is just too dumb.

Nice goal post moving for the fifth time but I am glad you have just demonstrated you have zero understanding about the process of nuclear proliferation on this hill that you have been dying on for the 10th time.

I am not arguing against the whole world because the “whole world” actually realized the deal had caveats. The “whole world” (not Bibi and actually Trump, if you want to blame someone) understood that it would have prolonged breakout time and it would not have prevented nuclear weapons development as by your own fucking definition of denuclearization.

 

[Rod1]

Nice goal post moving for the fifth time but I am glad you have just demonstrated you

What goalpost moving?

have zero understanding about the process of nuclear proliferation on this hill that you have been dying on for the 10th time.

My position is the same position of the IAEA, the US DoD and the US nuclear weapon scientists community. Your position is that of Bibi Netanyahu.

I am not arguing against the whole world because the “whole world” actually realized the deal had caveats. The “whole world” (not Bibi) understood that it would have prolonged breakout time and it would not have prevented nuclear weapons

JFC

Iran didn't had nukes, it would had prevented Iran from getting nukes as long as the treaty stands.

development as by your own fucking definition of denuclearization.

The definition of "denuclearization" according to the dictionary means removal of nuclear weapons, Iran can't denuclearize because it would first need to have nukes.

Again, you are resting your whole case in a fucking grammatical argument, because you know how fucking unhinged is to see Israel sabotage the entire world's efforts to fix a problem by convincing one of the most corrupt and stupid presidents in American history.

Iran is already denuclearized, the deal would had prevented Iran from amassing enough uranium and plutonium for a bomb as long as the treaty existed as long as JCPOA stood, there would be no nukes in Iran.

 

[Samjj]

What goalpost moving?


My position is the same position of the IAEA, the US DoD and the US nuclear weapon scientists community. Your position is that of Bibi Netanyahu.


JFC

Iran didn't had nukes, it would had prevented Iran from getting nukes as long as the treaty stands.



The definition of "denuclearization" according to the dictionary means removal of nuclear weapons, Iran can't denuclearize because it would first need to have nukes.

Again, you are resting your whole case in a fucking grammatical argument, because you know how fucking unhinged is to see Israel sabotage the entire world's efforts to fix a problem by convincing one of the most corrupt and stupid presidents in American history.

Iran is already denuclearized, the deal would had prevented Iran from amassing enough uranium and plutonium for a bomb as long as the treaty existed as long as JCPOA stood, there would be no nukes in Iran.

Our argument isn’t if the agreement should have been kept or not but about its caveats and stipulations which you repeatedly are misrepresenting like its your job.

Our disagreement is not a grammatical argument.

The deal would have prolonged Iran’s breakout time - nothing more, nothing less and would not have resulted in denuclearization. That word means to remove all nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons developed which was not stipulated in the JCPOA.

I don’t know why you keep reverting to the appeal to authoriy argument “derp, the international community thought…” because it is irrelevant. The international community thought this was a preferable path to potential deescalation with Iran which hopefully would lead to a future negotiation for denuclearization in place of a military conflict.

Your repeated claims of this being a defacto denuclearization deal means that you have zero fucking understanding of the process of nuclear weapons proliferation and development.

 

[Rod1]

Our argument isn’t if the agreement should have been kept or not but about its caveats and stipulations which you repeatedly are misrepresenting like its your job.

No, it was not, that was you literally moving the goalpost by changing what the term denuclearization means.

That's not an argument between you and me, but you and the dictionary.

 

[Rod1]

The deal would have prolonged Iran’s breakout time - nothing more, nothing less and would not have resulted in denuclearization. That word means to remove all nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons developed which was not stipulated in the JCPOA.

Iran doesn't has nuclear weapons, its not a nuclear state in that regard, under JCPOA Iran would not had been able to build nuclear weapons.

This is a fact.

I don’t know why you keep reverting to the appeal to authoriy argument “derp, the international community thought…” because it is irrelevant. The international community thought this was a preferable path to potential deescalation with Iran which hopefully would lead to a future negotiation for denuclearization in place of a military conflict.

Im using an appeal to authority because you are using an ad hominen.

Your claim that the JCPOA would not prevent Iran from gaining nukes (as long as the treaty stood) is in direct contradition with the IAEA and the US own experts on the matter.

 

[tramendous]

You say shit like this but things like the iron dome have given Israel the luxury of letting orgs like Hamas survive instead of having to do what they’re doing now. So joke away but 6 months into this war with incredibly lopsided body counts, it’s not really funny anymore.

I wasnt joking. They are a paper tiger who ran out of ammo fighting a militia and needed America to bail them out.

 

[Rod1]

I wasnt joking. They are a paper tiger who ran out of ammo fighting a militia and needed America to bail them out.

They ran out of ammo because they are literally leveling the whole district in order to root the militia out.

If they were trying to fight a defensive war against Arab states they would outright destroy their logistic capabilities while decapitating command.

I mean even in Yom Kippur, they were about to turn the war around and would had probably ended up winning the war anyway.

 

[Blayt7hh]

I wasnt joking. They are a paper tiger who ran out of ammo fighting a militia and needed America to bail them out.

Yeah ok guy

 

[Badr Hari]

Their missiles actually landed. Weak shit is Iran’s air defense in comparison to Israel’s.

I knew Iran's air defense isn't the high tech Israel posseses. Weak shit is the volume of Israel's attack. Also politically it's worse than no retaliation at all. At least without a response they would have kept a more normal look internationally and a "we can, but we are saving you of disaster" look among iranians. Now they have showed a weakness and as rational as the de escalation choice seems now it will backfire long term. Even a stupid and inferior enemy is more dangerous when encouraged.

 

[Siver!]

Your repeated claims of this being a defacto denuclearization deal means that you have zero fucking understanding of the process of nuclear weapons proliferation and development.

Fucking lol

I don't think anyone on Sherdog has any sort of understanding of the process of nuclear weapons proliferation and development, and any such posturing is retarded.

No offence to either of you, but there's a Reuters article that you're both arguing either end of in a best case/worst case scenario, and they even used the car analogy that Iran used that you've been batting back and forth. The conclusion quite clearly is: nobody knows where Iran is at, because Trump is a giant dumbass who effectively withdrew the team that inspects Iran's actions out of Iran and blinded the world to whatever progress they are or are not making.

The assumption that Iran might not have the expertise to fully develop a nuke is shaky since they're almost partnered up with Russia, who definitely do know how.

All in all, another big 'W' for Donald who made the Middle East a much less safe place.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

Nothing to see here: US, Israel go radio silent on strike against Iran​

The Israeli strike on Iranian air defense radar site was limited in scope.
ByAnne Flaherty and Martha Raddatz

Hours after a senior U.S. official told ABC News that Israeli fighter aircraft struck an air defense radar site inside Iran, top U.S. and Israeli officials on Friday declined to publicly acknowledge the incident in an apparent move aimed at de-escalating the situation and keeping Iran from retaliating.

The radio silence was notable after weeks of U.S. officials publicly urging Israel to show restraint.

At the end of a G7 foreign ministers meeting in Capri, Italy, Secretary of State Antony Blinken was asked why he wouldn't address what happened overnight.

The reporter also asked, "Isn’t it important that you do so? Can you tell us if you’ve spoken to your Israeli counterparts?"

Blinken replied, "I'm going to be incredibly boring and not make your day by saying, again, I'm not going to speak to what's been reported -- other than to say that the United States has not been involved in any offensive operations."

"The United States, along with our partners, will continue to work for de-escalation," he added.

But even as Blinken defelcted, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani seemed reveal that Israel gave the US a heads up before the strike.

“They were – [the] United States -- were informed the last minute, but there was no involvement on the part of the United States it was simply information which was provided,” Tajani said.

According to a senior U.S. official, three missiles were fired early Thursday local time from Israeli fighter aircraft outside of Iran. The target was an air defense radar site near Isfaha that helps to protect a nearby nuclear facility.

The limited strike was believed to show Iran that Israel has the ability to cause real damage, but at the same time not provoke Iran.


Iran called the Israeli strike a dramatic exaggeration by the media. In a meeting at the United Nations, Iranian Foreign Minister Amir Abdollahian said "the downed micro-aerial vehicle did not cause any financial or life damage."

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed not damage was done to the Natanz nuclear facility.

Shuki Friedman of the Jewish People Policy Institute, a former head of the Iran sanctions program for the Israeli prime minister's office, likened the strike to Israel sending Iran a "text message."

"Israel sent the message that 'we can reach anywhere,'" and to "demonstrate capabilities of a much more meaningful attack," Friedman said.

Mick Mulroy, a former deputy secretary of defense for the Middle East and an ABC News national security and defense contributor, agreed the attack was carefully calibrated.


"I believe the Israeli's are determined to show Iran that it could target a sensitive facility in Iran, but did so in a manner not to provoke a response," he said


"They also with the notable exception of their national security minister chose not to publicly discuss (the incident) as that would of been counterproductive to trying to contain and deescalate the situation," Mulroy added.

The U.S. appeared to be doing the same.

At the Pentagon, aides on Thursday were teleworking or declared themselves busy with no plans to brief reporters. The State Department, too, was quiet.

Such a slow pace can be typical in Washington for a Friday, as staffers eye the exits for an early weekend.


But the quiet hallways were noteworthy, given that a close U.S. ally had just launched a direct attack on Iran and no comment was to be found.

At the White House, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, who briefed reporters at length throughout the week, was not at the podium for the daily press briefing.

When pressed by reporters about whether declining comment was part of an administration strategy to de-escalate, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre would say she was going to be “super mindful” in her remarks.

“I understand the interest and I'm going to be disappointing many people here. This afternoon, I just don't have anything to share,” she said.

She added that “more generally,” the U.S. has been clear “we do not want to see this conflict escalate.”

One U.S. official who declined to discuss any detailed offered this assessment of the unusual silence so long as they were granted anonymity: "In the end, we're trying to stop a war here."

ABC's Matt Gutman contributed to this report.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/us-israel-radio-silent-strike-iran/story?id=109429645

 

[LeonardoBjj]

Analysis: Why an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is a bad idea​

A direct Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites would yield little while risking too much.

By Maziar Motamedi
Published On 19 Apr 202419 Apr 2024

Tehran, Iran – Iran says it has shot down three quadcopters launched inside its territory and news reports say there have been explosions at some military sites in Syria – taken as indications that Israel has responded to Iran’s missile and drone attacks on its soil last week.

Iran said it shot down the quadcopters in the central province of Isfahan, where there are military bases, as well as the country’s main nuclear facilities at Natanz.

However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that Iran’s nuclear sites were untouched.

For several hours, there were conflicting reports as the United States said there had been an Israeli missile attack while Iran said there had been no missiles, only some small craft that had been shot down, and Israel said nothing.

He also suggested it would be “likely and imaginable” for Iran to reconsider pursuing a nuclear weapon if its nuclear facilities were targeted.

Iran’s attack last week was a well-telegraphed and near fully averted retaliation for Israel’s suspected bombing of the Iranian consular building in Syria that killed seven IRGC personnel, including two generals.


Operations “exceeded expectations”, the IRGC said, as some ballistic missiles punched through layers of defences mounted by Israel and its allies.

Before the Israeli attacks on Friday morning, Iran had bolstered its defences, including at nuclear facilities.

On Sunday, the Iranian government told the IAEA that all nuclear facilities subject to inspection would be closed for one day for “security considerations”, IAEA head Rafael Grossi told reporters the following day.

Friday’s attack was close to Natanz, and Israel has successfully launched high-profile sabotage attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities before, but would it go as far as launching a direct attack on an Iranian nuclear facility?

At least under the current circumstances, the answer is most likely no.

Would a strike on nuclear sites even be possible?​

For one, there are tactical military considerations.

Israel would most likely have to carry out such an attack alone as the US, which helped repel Iran’s attack, has cautioned it will not actively participate in an attack on Iran and has demonstrated that on Friday.

This has come after strict warnings from Tehran to Washington to keep clear – messages delivered publicly and officially.

Shortly after Iran’s attack on Israel, Tehran took the unprecedented step of summoning the Swiss envoy – the representative of Washington’s political interests in Iran – not to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as is the norm, but to the IRGC, to warn against any attack.

In the absence of US military backing, Israel would be alone in trying to get through layers of Iranian air defences to reach facilities that are underground or buried deep in the mountains.

At Natanz where Iran’s main nuclear facilities are located, satellite images have shown progress being made in constructing a new underground site that could hold uranium enrichment halls and other facilities.

At an estimated 100 metres (328 feet) below the ground, it is so deep that even the US-made bunker buster bombs that Israel has been using in Gaza to devastating effect will likely fail to damage it.

Iran’s nuclear programme and attempts to cap it​

Israel says the world must do everything possible to ensure Iran never gets a nuclear weapon and has even promised direct military action to stop that from happening.

Iran has always maintained that it does not seek a nuclear bomb.

It ramped up its nuclear activity starting in 2018 after the US unilaterally abandoned the 2015 nuclear deal – now in tatters – with world powers that capped Iranian uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent in exchange for sanctions relief.

Construction on the new site at Natanz started in response to a 2020 sabotage attack. In 2021, Iran took uranium enrichment up to 60 percent, days after a sabotage attack on Natanz that Tehran blamed on Israel.

The IAEA says Iran has the materials required for several bombs but that, based on inspections, it has not started on a bomb. The IAEA said in its last quarterly report that Iran has slightly slowed the pace of its 60 percent enrichment since the end of last year.


A direct Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would contradict Israel’s rhetoric about Iran’s nuclear capabilities in that it would only push Iran to a more drastic course of action, which could include reconsidering a bomb and pulling out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Even in a scenario where Israeli jet fighters manage to punch through Iranian air defences to reach Natanz or another top nuclear facility – which could also entail an environmental disaster – there is no guarantee what they will achieve.

Iran has been making strides in its nuclear research and development since the 2018 US withdrawal – a body of knowledge that cannot be destroyed by bombs or by assassinating individual scientists or project managers.

Severe, unpredictable ramifications​

An Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would be a de facto declaration of war as it would constitute a full-fledged military assault on one of the highest-valued Iranian state facilities.

This new level of escalation would be even higher than the levelling of Iran’s consulate in Syria, itself an unprecedented violation of international law, which seemed to start the current cycle of attack and response.

It would not only force Iran’s hand to mount an even stronger military response, but it would likely also spring the “axis of resistance” of Iran-aligned groups in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen to the highest level of action against Israel since the start of the devastating war on Gaza.


Facing growing international condemnation for the war on Gaza, Israeli officials would also find it extremely difficult to justify a direct assault on Iran, especially on nuclear facilities, at the UN, which would test the boundaries of “ironclad” support from their Western allies.

This while the Israeli army is already stretched by the combined strain of its military campaign in Gaza and border fighting with Hezbollah.

It also would remain to be seen whether the attacks would be directed solely at Israel, as Tehran has repeatedly warned that it would also hold the US, and any regional countries who cooperate with Israel, responsible for any major strikes by Israel.

That would expose the entire region and beyond to significantly expanded military conflict, if not all-out war.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024...ack-on-irans-nuclear-facilities-is-a-bad-idea

 

[Rod1]

I knew Iran's air defense isn't the high tech Israel posseses. Weak shit is the volume of Israel's attack. Also politically it's worse than no retaliation at all. At least without a response they would have kept a more normal look internationally and a "we can, but we are saving you of disaster" look among iranians. Now they have showed a weakness and as rational as the de escalation choice seems now it will backfire long term. Even a stupid and inferior enemy is more dangerous when encouraged.

You don't need volume if you can actually hit targets.

Also Iran took the memo when pretty much all nations among the way and the US and UK joined to shoot down their missiles, nobody wants a war between Israel and Iran but if there is, chances are most will side with Israel.