d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > June Bombardment Of Iran
Prev15556575859108Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 45,717
Joined: Aug 25 2008
Gold: 40,130.00
Jun 20 2025 11:45am
I come to this thread with genuine intent to debate, no intent to insult or cause offence to anyone, I might be a new member but am an adult (like most here discussing such topics I hope)

For background I am from the UK if you feel this may be relevant. I personally don't follow any political persuasion - I didn't vote at the last election and the election before that I "protest voted" Green, not so much on the wider environmental issues but on a specific issue local to me. I work in the charity sector and work with and meet people daily from diverse backgrounds - including practising Muslims and practising Jewish.

My view on the whole Israel-Iran scenario, in a nutshell, which I'm sure you can appreciate cannot be a holistic view on every single tiny issue at stake otherwise I would be here typing for days, is this:

- Hamas attacked Israel on Oct 7, 2023, intentionally setting out to murder as many civilians as possible
- Israel's security response on the day (and the intelligence prior) was woefully inadequate
- This necessitated a huge response of force from Israel - both to deter a future attack, but also to "save face" for Netanyahu and other prominent Israeli Government members who could be held liable for the security and intelligence failures
- Israel's initial response, over the first week or two, whilst overwhelming and undoubtedly causing immense loss of life, was likely "proportionate" in the sense that they were responding to an immediate attack and weight should be given to the fact that it can be difficult to judge exactly how much force to use in such scenarios
- Certainly beyond the first month, Israel's response became punitive in nature and was designed to cause suffering to the population
- Beyond this, Israeli Government figures, including Netanyahu, have publicly several times made statements that would equate to genoicidal intent (to rid Gaza of it's population)
- The world at large has not responded effectively to this - albeit the ICC has issued an arrest warrant, nobody has stated they would enact it

- Despite all of this, it must absolutely be recognised that Israel was attacked, and responded to defend itself.
- The force used was overwhelming and clearly at this current time is disproportionate to the current threat faced

The extension of this situation into a direct Iran-Israel conflict is obviously because of Iran's indirect control of almost all of Israel's "traditional" enemies. Israel has calculated that now is the time that Iran is at it's weakest point. It is noteworthy to state that Iran's Supreme Leader has publicly committed his country before to the destruction of Israel. Israel is entitled to take that as a credible threat, even if their current assessments of Iran's immediate nuclear capabilities are obviously extremely exaggerated.

It is simple. Israel has calculated that now is the opportune time to move. Iran has played with fire, and has been burnt. There is still time for Iran to back down, but all of the signals they have been sending thus far seem to suggest that they are preparing for a fight, and not ready to negotiate. Netanyahi, much like the Supreme Leader, is a hardline fundamentalist and will not compromise on his core demands. There is only two ways for this to go - a full back-down from Iran and verifiable abandonment of their nuclear program, or a regional war with the goal of removing the Iranian leadership.


Not meant to be an insult or being offensive.
We took our O levels and A levels.

I remember my teacher teaching us how to approach and write compositions and how we should approach problems with this technique.

Who, what, when, where, why and how.

You need to revisit what you wrote. This is a complicated and complex issue that from my point of view is almost impossible to solve with diplomacy or negotiations.

The Russian Ukraine kerfuffle is much easier compared to the middle east.
Member
Posts: 56,269
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 575,205.03
Jun 20 2025 11:45am
I respectfully disagree - I think it is clear Israel does want regime change in Iran. If public reports are to be believed, Trump veto'd their plan to assassinate the Ayatollah. There is no reason to assassinate him, unless they want regime change. Now, I did not say that necessarily Israeli's or Americans for that matter want to control the regime in Iran, or install their own regime. But they certainly have a vested interest, and a clear intent, to remove the current regime, if only to send a message that they are powerful and not to be threatened.


hehe the nuances of language! I will put my view another way:

I believe Israel might welcome or benefit from instability in Iran, but I don't think it's actively trying to engineer the establishment of a pro-Israel puppet government. Instead, as a consequence of the conflict, Iran could become a failed state with no effective leadership — which, in effect, would amount to regime change.

also i was tagged into this on twitter, make of it what you will

Collingwood 🇬🇧
@admcollingwood
A longer post on what Britain's interests are in the current Israel-Iran conflict.

The United Kingdom has four main interests in Iran. First, that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons and thereby further damage the cause of nuclear non-proliferation. Second, that a crisis which produces waves of refugees does not envelop Iran. Third, that international norms regarding political assassinations and acceptable targeting in warfighting are maintained. Fourth, that Middle Eastern energy infrastructure and logistics remain operational so that energy prices do not spike.

The current actions of Israel (and probably soon the United States) cut against every one of these interests.

On the first of these interests, it is difficult to imagine anything more likely to push Iran to accelerate its efforts to proliferate (or convince other nations that they might need a Bomb) than the events of the last week. Non-proliferation efforts have therefore been significantly set back. Even if the facilities and reactors, apparently buried beneath many feet of solid granite, are completely destroyed, it would only delay the programme, which would surely be a priority in future for any Iranian government.

Israel, though, appears to want to remove the present Iranian political leaders in order to foment the breakup or federalisation of the country, and perhaps precipitate a full blown civil war (The Jerusalem Post has published an opinion editorial demanding the US help with exactly these aims). This would be a humanitarian catastrophe. It would also almost certainly draw Turkey, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, the Gulf Monarchies, and perhaps China and the US, into the theatre. Most importantly, though, it would produce a wave of Europe-bound immigrants larger than those which hit after Western powers fomented the Libyan and Syrian Civil wars. Israel would be happy, as Iran would (at least for some years) be too weak to be a threat anymore, but an Iranian breakup, civil war or chaotic regime change would obviously be against UK interests.

On the third matter, our support for Israel's assassination and decapitation strikes is short sighted. If, say, Russia or Argentina commenced a war by killing Britain's political leadership, senior members of the Civil Service, senior staff officers, and the heads of Britain's intelligence services and police, then attacked our nuclear facilities and murdered British nuclear scientists to make repair and regeneration efforts more difficult, I think we would feel that that was beyond the pale, even by the standards of war. And that's putting it mildly. There used to be unwritten yet strict prohibitions against such acts, but we appear to have endorsed setting them aside.

Finally, while Iran has not yet responded to Israel's attack by attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz (a trifling task) or attacking energy infrastructure in other Gulf countries, such steps would very much be on the table if the US joined Israel's air attacks on Iran, and especially if US planes took off from bases in the Gulf states. Even the awesome might of US air power would not be guaranteed to suppress such efforts. If the Strait was closed, and if energy infrastructure were attacked, oil prices would surely spike, perhaps to over $100. Such prices would not only lead to higher inflation, but could trigger recession.

For the above reasons, it is in Britain's interest to seek an urgent resumption of negotiations between the United States and Iran, and to call for an end to hostilities. Or, we could instead cheer on the Israelis, because we love the idea of sticking it to the Muslims, or because we have imported yet another American political pathology, or just because we can't glance a foreign war without taking sides and getting into tribal arguments on Twitter.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 20 2025 11:54am
Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Jun 14 2025
Gold: 0.00
Jun 20 2025 11:51am
Not meant to be an insult or being offensive.
Who, what, when, where, why and how.

You need to revisit what you wrote. This is a complicated and complex issue that from my point of view is almost impossible to solve with diplomacy or negotiations.


I don't see where my response left out any of those details.

It's not impossible to solve. The rational and realistic view is quite simple - Iran must come to the realisation that they are not in a position to set any terms of negotiation.

Whether that is fair or not, is not what I am considering. But that is the simple be all and end all. It is very clear from events so far, that anything less than a full abandonment of the Iranian nuclear program will be unacceptable, and will result in even further escalation from Israel and ultimately the US. The end result if they refuse will be complete annihilation from the air, followed inevitably by American/Allied forces boots on the ground, ostensibly to "restore order" and facilitate the creation of a new Government. But lessons from the recent past teach us how that will go.

Again I think it's important to note I'm not taking any sides here - just pointing out what I see is the clear and inevitable path this conflict will follow.
Member
Posts: 56,269
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 575,205.03
Jun 20 2025 11:55am
I don't see where my response left out any of those details.

It's not impossible to solve. The rational and realistic view is quite simple - Iran must come to the realisation that they are not in a position to set any terms of negotiation.

Whether that is fair or not, is not what I am considering. But that is the simple be all and end all. It is very clear from events so far, that anything less than a full abandonment of the Iranian nuclear program will be unacceptable, and will result in even further escalation from Israel and ultimately the US. The end result if they refuse will be complete annihilation from the air, followed inevitably by American/Allied forces boots on the ground, ostensibly to "restore order" and facilitate the creation of a new Government. But lessons from the recent past teach us how that will go.

Again I think it's important to note I'm not taking any sides here - just pointing out what I see is the clear and inevitable path this conflict will follow.


I dont think there is any appetite in the US or Israel to put boots on the ground.
I'm pretty sure Iran will never surrender.
and dont mind hamster hes erratic eh hehe no offence hamster.

but can i just say we are all very happy to see you posting! we never get anyone new around here! :love: omg a new user!

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 20 2025 11:58am
Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Jun 14 2025
Gold: 0.00
Jun 20 2025 11:59am
I dont think there is any appetite in the US or Israel to put boots on the ground.
I'm pretty sure Iran will never surrender.

but can i just say we are all very happy to see you posting! we never get anyone new around here! :love:


I don't think I see that appetite either, yet - but they've made some very public threats against the regime leadership and I imagine they are taking steps to secure themselves. If they want to follow through on those threats (not that Trump is renowned for following through with things he says), then I don't see how they could without boots on the ground.

Also, we have seen many times in the past how a supposed "non-appetite" for boots on the ground war has changed quickly. Iraq was a prime example. I wouldn't bet against the position moving quickly, even more so were an attack in the Middle East that affected US interests to occur.


Btw, thanks! I'll try to drop in from time to time to poke my head in :)
Member
Posts: 57,220
Joined: Oct 14 2010
Gold: 57,480.92
Jun 20 2025 12:05pm
The hands of our lord and savior, lockheed martin, are so sweaty from anticipation that new rivers are being created as we speak
Member
Posts: 45,717
Joined: Aug 25 2008
Gold: 40,130.00
Jun 20 2025 12:29pm
I don't see where my response left out any of those details.

It's not impossible to solve. The rational and realistic view is quite simple - Iran must come to the realisation that they are not in a position to set any terms of negotiation.

Whether that is fair or not, is not what I am considering. But that is the simple be all and end all. It is very clear from events so far, that anything less than a full abandonment of the Iranian nuclear program will be unacceptable, and will result in even further escalation from Israel and ultimately the US. The end result if they refuse will be complete annihilation from the air, followed inevitably by American/Allied forces boots on the ground, ostensibly to "restore order" and facilitate the creation of a new Government. But lessons from the recent past teach us how that will go.

Again I think it's important to note I'm not taking any sides here - just pointing out what I see is the clear and inevitable path this conflict will follow.


Let's start from this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

and this

UN General Assembly
Resolution 181 (II)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

And everything that leads up to now.




And to understand why the Jews went through what they went through and why they want to get it back

Start from this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt

And go through how European Christians kicked them around and stole their wealth and put them in pogroms.

Last but not least.

Get to know this gentlemen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl

And also read this gentlemen's books.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion

:lol: :thumbsup:

This post was edited by Hamsterbaby on Jun 20 2025 12:29pm
Member
Posts: 3,044
Joined: Nov 24 2016
Gold: 4,818.00
Warn: 10%
Jun 20 2025 12:38pm
"We must expel the Arabs" - David Ben-Gurion, first prime minister of Shitreal

It's amazing people have the nerve to act like the Arabs weren't just acting in self defense this whole time. The Zionists and their plan and message was crystal clear from the very beginning.
Member
Posts: 45,717
Joined: Aug 25 2008
Gold: 40,130.00
Jun 20 2025 12:42pm
"We must expel the Arabs" - David Ben-Gurion, first prime minister of Shitreal

It's amazing people have the nerve to act like the Arabs weren't just acting in self defense this whole time. The Zionists and their plan and message was crystal clear from the very beginning.


but do you know why he said that in the first place.
Member
Posts: 3,044
Joined: Nov 24 2016
Gold: 4,818.00
Warn: 10%
Jun 20 2025 12:45pm
Little rusty on why exactly, all I remember is was on a letter he wrote. But obviously the project couldn't succeed as a "democratic" one if the majority of the population in the land were the Arabs, even the Arab Jews or Arab Christians.

Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev15556575859108Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll