Kmele said that this operation has been a strategic success for Israel. I think that *very* much remains to be seen.
There's no denying that it's been a tactical masterpiece. But there are a lot of ways this could still go poorly in the long term.
First, I think it's pretty clear that Netanyahu was betting on the US bombing Fordrow by now. If we don't, Israel will probably feel compelled to attack it itself, and they may have to resort to a risky commando raid to ensure that they destroy all the nuclear assets. That's assuming Iran hasn't already moved them.
But bigger picture, Israel has now validated Iran's reasons for pursuing a nuclear weapon in the first place. It's the only real deterrent that Iran can rely on. Before the attack there was a chance -- a *chance* -- that Iran would have stopped short of actually building a bomb. I know Israeli intelligence says they were weeks away from having one. US intelligence disagrees and I'm not in a position to judge which is correct. But I'm pretty damn sure that if Iran has *any* opportunity to build a bomb in the future, they'll take it. Destroying Fordrow doesn't prevent that. The Iranians have gotten to this point before. It might take them years, but they could get back to this point again. It would be risky, of course -- any scenario in which the regime survives is going to come with some sort of an agreement to not pursue a nuke. But they can still try to do so secretly. At this point, what do they have to lose?
That means that regime change is the only reliable way for Israel to end Iran's nuclear ambitions, but that comes with its own risks, assuming Israel can even bring it about on their own (and I'm not sure they can).
Look, maybe this will end for the best. Maybe we'll see a relatively bloodless regime change and the new government will be stable, will mostly mind its own business, and we'll get a period of relative peace in the Middle East. But this part of the world has a long history of making fools out of optimists.
As someone who currently resides in Israel, none of us are fools for optimism here. We simply move forward. I'm not sure I understand your point about Israel validating Iran's reason for pursuing a nuclear weapon in the first place. I don't know if you've heard but the regime's raison d'etre is annihilation of Israel. Where do you get the idea that there was ever a chance for diplomacy? It's been tried and here we are. Should Israel wait and hope for the best? No one said the current attempt is going to stop Iran for good. There is *hope* that the people of Iran would stand up but no one knows what the replacement will bring but it's better than the alternative of sitting and waiting for the Ayatollah to change his daily incantation of "death to Israel and death to American."
"As someone who currently resides in Israel, none of us are fools for optimism here."
Yeah, that comment was directed more at American observers than Israelis.
" I don't know if you've heard but the regime's raison d'etre is annihilation of Israel."
Yes, but I'm not sure they're willing to embrace mutually assured destruction to achieve it. Another possibility is that a bomb allows them to continue trying to destroy Israel through terrorism and conventional means while providing a deterrent that prevents Israel or the US from doing the exact thing that Israel just did (and that Trump is contemplating).
"Where do you get the idea that there was ever a chance for diplomacy?"
American intelligence continues to assess that Iran hasn't (or hadn't, prior to last week, at least) made the decision to build a bomb. That leaves open the possibility that they could have been incentivized to stop short of that point. I understand Israeli intelligence disagrees. One's position here probably hinges a lot on which of those assessments one believes (along with proximity to Iran's ballistic missile launchers).
There's no easy answers and I don't blame any Israeli for being unwilling to take a chance. There *is* an opportunity here. My point is that it's risky, and if these attacks don't bring down the regime then they may end up bringing about the very outcome that Israel was hoping to avoid. It's just too early to assess the *strategic* success of this operation.
While I agree that each situation is different and there isn't an exact parallel to Iran, I think you guys are underestimating some of the risks.
Michael downplayed the possibility of a refugee crisis because of the number of reform-minded Iranian expats that would go back to the country if the regime falls, but I fail to see how that's relevant. What matters is how many factions have guns and how much they're shooting at each other.
And there's no guarantee that a new Iranian government would be friendly towards Israel or the US. In fact, I'd bet against that possibility. I think it's more likely that they align with China, giving them a greater foothold in the region.
Also, I agree that no one *wants* to put boots on the ground, but if the regime falls and any of the nuclear material is unaccounted for, someone will have to go in to secure it. You can't do that by air.
And if the regime doesn't fall, there's a chance they retaliate for any US strikes by attacking regional US bases. Iran's offensive capabilities have been seriously degraded but, as we've seen, they can still do damage. If they destroy a plane or, God forbid, kill some US service members, we'll have to respond. It *probably* won't escalate out of control, but it may also not be as simple as flying a few sorties with the B-2 (which, we should remember, are never risk free -- these planes aren't invisible or invincible).
Iran could also try to close the Strait of Hormuz which will require yet more American involvement.
There's also a chance that the bunker buster that we would use on Fordrow (specifically the GBU-57) isn't as effective as we hope. That would be embarrassing and, more importantly, it would all but eliminate their deterrent effect.
Finally, even if US involvement is relatively limited, if we can't extricate ourselves quickly then it's yet another distraction from the bigger strategic risks posed by China.
I worry that SOME of you dismissed Matt's concerns about the unforeseen knock-on risks of intervention too easily, but as my ability to influence geopolitical events is infinitesimally small (some might say approaching zero), I'm content to wait and see what happens
I was speaking with a friend who's extremely well informed on these sorts of things and the point I made is it would be nice to have Iranian guns and money turned inward instead of outward for a few years to give Israel time to rearm even if the new presumably dictators are just as bad. And as Spencer said, the Iranian government is truly evil.
I love the "well the Iranian government IS pretty terrible..." shibboleth - I originally included it in my comment, but removed it to make things punchy.
I agree, they're awful and won't be missed. I don't think that overrides the risks here, but I'm hoping to be pleasantly surprised
given that it comes from The Guardian which has turned into a bit of a rag, this is a surprisingly accurate take about how it's not just as simple as lobbing a few MOPs at Fordow. You can't undrop a MOP-and even assuming it works as we hope- if we drop them, then we've opened up our bases throughout the Middle East for retaliation from Iran. Not to mention the possible assassination of our own military and political leaders. It is not a simple decision. Israelis who are acting like it is, and how they just need this one thing and if we give it, it will all be fine, they're gaslighting us about potential consequences. Maybe the smartest thing is to go ahead and do it-but we have to be clear-eyed about the potential for retaliation. Iran lacks Israel's weaponry-it doesn't lack Regime thugs willing to resort to personal ultra-violence. And BTW-drones are mighty cheap and accurate these days, and can be built to utilize frequency hopping or parts of the RF spectrum quite hard to jam. And FPV drones controlled with fiber optics can't be jammed at all. So, we'll be very exposed to retaliation if we go ahead and bomb, and the retaliation may arrive at a time and from directions in which we have very little in the way of effective defense i.e. OWA UAVs deployed in CONUS.
Also, if you know enough about Iran to know the potential successors to Khamenei-all of them are just as bad, some of them are even worse and actually want to provoke the Shia version of the Apocalypse (where-I kid you not-the Hidden Imam is supposed to reappear and become part of a evil fighting duo with Jesus).
Don't care for Trump-I think he's feckless and ineffectual-but I don't envy him the decision to bomb or not to bomb. A strong case can be made that either decision could-pun intended-blow up in his face.
I honestly feel like we get shitty choices for mayor every election. I don't like Cuomo because I think he's an asshole who did a poor job as governor (also he was hostile to public schools though he claims he changed his tune; I don't buy it). It's a bit undemocratic to me that the only election that matters is the Democratic primary, but since the Republicans never offer anyone up who has reasonable ideas, I am not surprised that they consistently lose. I'd love a candidate who is like "Hey, our schools should teach kids about the things they need to excel at in life that will get them better jobs, I will keep our citizens safe and encourage companies to come here so people can have a chance at being successful."
Regime change is ugly and I’m not sure would be the most ideal solution. Of course, I would prefer a long-term peace negotiation between Iran and its’ proxies and Israel! One can dream of giving peace a chance. With Israel having a nuclear program, maybe that’s why Iran would want one too. Both are antagonistic! I also have concerns about national security here with US involvement. MAGA very much campaigned on No New Wars too!
Moynihan: *ponders whether Idiocracy is age appropriate for his child* *Hits play on Requiem for a Dream*
"I don't see colored people time." Overrun in the stampede, but I heard it.
More Harry Siegel!
Is "Indian head tilt" a no step on snek moment for Mr Foster?
Just in case no one says it: Cynthia Nixon does really hate the Jews.
Kmele said that this operation has been a strategic success for Israel. I think that *very* much remains to be seen.
There's no denying that it's been a tactical masterpiece. But there are a lot of ways this could still go poorly in the long term.
First, I think it's pretty clear that Netanyahu was betting on the US bombing Fordrow by now. If we don't, Israel will probably feel compelled to attack it itself, and they may have to resort to a risky commando raid to ensure that they destroy all the nuclear assets. That's assuming Iran hasn't already moved them.
But bigger picture, Israel has now validated Iran's reasons for pursuing a nuclear weapon in the first place. It's the only real deterrent that Iran can rely on. Before the attack there was a chance -- a *chance* -- that Iran would have stopped short of actually building a bomb. I know Israeli intelligence says they were weeks away from having one. US intelligence disagrees and I'm not in a position to judge which is correct. But I'm pretty damn sure that if Iran has *any* opportunity to build a bomb in the future, they'll take it. Destroying Fordrow doesn't prevent that. The Iranians have gotten to this point before. It might take them years, but they could get back to this point again. It would be risky, of course -- any scenario in which the regime survives is going to come with some sort of an agreement to not pursue a nuke. But they can still try to do so secretly. At this point, what do they have to lose?
That means that regime change is the only reliable way for Israel to end Iran's nuclear ambitions, but that comes with its own risks, assuming Israel can even bring it about on their own (and I'm not sure they can).
Look, maybe this will end for the best. Maybe we'll see a relatively bloodless regime change and the new government will be stable, will mostly mind its own business, and we'll get a period of relative peace in the Middle East. But this part of the world has a long history of making fools out of optimists.
As someone who currently resides in Israel, none of us are fools for optimism here. We simply move forward. I'm not sure I understand your point about Israel validating Iran's reason for pursuing a nuclear weapon in the first place. I don't know if you've heard but the regime's raison d'etre is annihilation of Israel. Where do you get the idea that there was ever a chance for diplomacy? It's been tried and here we are. Should Israel wait and hope for the best? No one said the current attempt is going to stop Iran for good. There is *hope* that the people of Iran would stand up but no one knows what the replacement will bring but it's better than the alternative of sitting and waiting for the Ayatollah to change his daily incantation of "death to Israel and death to American."
"As someone who currently resides in Israel, none of us are fools for optimism here."
Yeah, that comment was directed more at American observers than Israelis.
" I don't know if you've heard but the regime's raison d'etre is annihilation of Israel."
Yes, but I'm not sure they're willing to embrace mutually assured destruction to achieve it. Another possibility is that a bomb allows them to continue trying to destroy Israel through terrorism and conventional means while providing a deterrent that prevents Israel or the US from doing the exact thing that Israel just did (and that Trump is contemplating).
"Where do you get the idea that there was ever a chance for diplomacy?"
American intelligence continues to assess that Iran hasn't (or hadn't, prior to last week, at least) made the decision to build a bomb. That leaves open the possibility that they could have been incentivized to stop short of that point. I understand Israeli intelligence disagrees. One's position here probably hinges a lot on which of those assessments one believes (along with proximity to Iran's ballistic missile launchers).
There's no easy answers and I don't blame any Israeli for being unwilling to take a chance. There *is* an opportunity here. My point is that it's risky, and if these attacks don't bring down the regime then they may end up bringing about the very outcome that Israel was hoping to avoid. It's just too early to assess the *strategic* success of this operation.
While I agree that each situation is different and there isn't an exact parallel to Iran, I think you guys are underestimating some of the risks.
Michael downplayed the possibility of a refugee crisis because of the number of reform-minded Iranian expats that would go back to the country if the regime falls, but I fail to see how that's relevant. What matters is how many factions have guns and how much they're shooting at each other.
And there's no guarantee that a new Iranian government would be friendly towards Israel or the US. In fact, I'd bet against that possibility. I think it's more likely that they align with China, giving them a greater foothold in the region.
Also, I agree that no one *wants* to put boots on the ground, but if the regime falls and any of the nuclear material is unaccounted for, someone will have to go in to secure it. You can't do that by air.
And if the regime doesn't fall, there's a chance they retaliate for any US strikes by attacking regional US bases. Iran's offensive capabilities have been seriously degraded but, as we've seen, they can still do damage. If they destroy a plane or, God forbid, kill some US service members, we'll have to respond. It *probably* won't escalate out of control, but it may also not be as simple as flying a few sorties with the B-2 (which, we should remember, are never risk free -- these planes aren't invisible or invincible).
Iran could also try to close the Strait of Hormuz which will require yet more American involvement.
There's also a chance that the bunker buster that we would use on Fordrow (specifically the GBU-57) isn't as effective as we hope. That would be embarrassing and, more importantly, it would all but eliminate their deterrent effect.
Finally, even if US involvement is relatively limited, if we can't extricate ourselves quickly then it's yet another distraction from the bigger strategic risks posed by China.
I worry that SOME of you dismissed Matt's concerns about the unforeseen knock-on risks of intervention too easily, but as my ability to influence geopolitical events is infinitesimally small (some might say approaching zero), I'm content to wait and see what happens
I think it’s important to remember it can always get worse. That being said… Iran govt is pretty, pretty evil.
I was speaking with a friend who's extremely well informed on these sorts of things and the point I made is it would be nice to have Iranian guns and money turned inward instead of outward for a few years to give Israel time to rearm even if the new presumably dictators are just as bad. And as Spencer said, the Iranian government is truly evil.
I love the "well the Iranian government IS pretty terrible..." shibboleth - I originally included it in my comment, but removed it to make things punchy.
I agree, they're awful and won't be missed. I don't think that overrides the risks here, but I'm hoping to be pleasantly surprised
Breaking news!!!! Matt likes baseball.
Sad to hear yall are falling for Iraq Part 2: Retarded Boogaloo
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/19/trump-caution-on-iran-strike-linked-to-doubts-over-bunker-buster-bomb-officials-say
I know folks who worked on the MOP.
given that it comes from The Guardian which has turned into a bit of a rag, this is a surprisingly accurate take about how it's not just as simple as lobbing a few MOPs at Fordow. You can't undrop a MOP-and even assuming it works as we hope- if we drop them, then we've opened up our bases throughout the Middle East for retaliation from Iran. Not to mention the possible assassination of our own military and political leaders. It is not a simple decision. Israelis who are acting like it is, and how they just need this one thing and if we give it, it will all be fine, they're gaslighting us about potential consequences. Maybe the smartest thing is to go ahead and do it-but we have to be clear-eyed about the potential for retaliation. Iran lacks Israel's weaponry-it doesn't lack Regime thugs willing to resort to personal ultra-violence. And BTW-drones are mighty cheap and accurate these days, and can be built to utilize frequency hopping or parts of the RF spectrum quite hard to jam. And FPV drones controlled with fiber optics can't be jammed at all. So, we'll be very exposed to retaliation if we go ahead and bomb, and the retaliation may arrive at a time and from directions in which we have very little in the way of effective defense i.e. OWA UAVs deployed in CONUS.
Also, if you know enough about Iran to know the potential successors to Khamenei-all of them are just as bad, some of them are even worse and actually want to provoke the Shia version of the Apocalypse (where-I kid you not-the Hidden Imam is supposed to reappear and become part of a evil fighting duo with Jesus).
Don't care for Trump-I think he's feckless and ineffectual-but I don't envy him the decision to bomb or not to bomb. A strong case can be made that either decision could-pun intended-blow up in his face.
Allāhu Akbar. Allāhu Akbar!!!! Muhammad jihad!!
Durka-durka?
Derk derk allah. Haka sherpa sherpa bak Allah
I honestly feel like we get shitty choices for mayor every election. I don't like Cuomo because I think he's an asshole who did a poor job as governor (also he was hostile to public schools though he claims he changed his tune; I don't buy it). It's a bit undemocratic to me that the only election that matters is the Democratic primary, but since the Republicans never offer anyone up who has reasonable ideas, I am not surprised that they consistently lose. I'd love a candidate who is like "Hey, our schools should teach kids about the things they need to excel at in life that will get them better jobs, I will keep our citizens safe and encourage companies to come here so people can have a chance at being successful."
Woof
“Beyond the Clip” is a pretty good prospective news show (TM TM TM anyone doing this owes me royalties)
Regime change is ugly and I’m not sure would be the most ideal solution. Of course, I would prefer a long-term peace negotiation between Iran and its’ proxies and Israel! One can dream of giving peace a chance. With Israel having a nuclear program, maybe that’s why Iran would want one too. Both are antagonistic! I also have concerns about national security here with US involvement. MAGA very much campaigned on No New Wars too!
Trump said no new wars, plural. He's allowed to have one.