The Israeli apartheid regime’s genocidal policies and its reckless adventuring are far more dangerous generators of existential threats.
I don’t think so.
I think that the rise of political Islam is a far greater threat from the Middle East.
This war all but guarantees nuclear proliferation in the middle east.
No it doesn’t.
Why would any Middle Eastern country, besides Israel, want to procure nukes? Aside from nuking Israel, why would Iran need them? To repel invasion? Who would invade them besides a lethargic US that miserably failed in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Pete Hegseth or Donald Rumsfeld: which of these SoSs do you think was/is the bigger idiot?
Every potential rival of Israel from the Saudis and the Turks to Iranians themselves have just gotten a big red flashing warning in their inboxes that the Jewish-supremacist Israeli apartheid regime and its Jewish-supremacist allies in the West are not rational actors that can be negotiated with.
Turkey has diplomatic relations with Israel and IIUC, Saudi Arabia was close to it until Putin’s 71st birthday and Israel’s response to events of that day, though IMO, it’s been only postponed a few years. Neither Turkey nor SA are on great terms with Iran, and IIUC, Pakistan has nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
They will break deals (like the deal Iran had actually signed), they will negotiate in bad faith, they will initiate first strike and they will bomb your civilian population following the insane Dahiya doctrine. The only thing they understand is mutually assured destruction (nobody touches the rocket-man in North Korea!). So why the fuck shouldn’t all of them race for nuclear weapons at this point?
Whose “they”?
Even with nukes, I doubt North Korea could destroy the US, but the US could destroy North Korea. Indeed, the US might be able to destroy North Korea without nukes.
Just because the Kim gang slipped through the cracks (IIUC Papa Bush and Dubya were too busy with Iraq; Clinton made deals with NK; and during Obama’s presidency, the occupation of Afghanistan and attempted nation-building there continued, Arab Spring fizzled, Islamic State rose, Russia invaded Ukraine and occupied chunks of it, and after 2010, Congress became even more antagonistic) doesn’t mean that the US will allow Iran to develop nukes.
Your response is just a mix of historical inaccuracies, strategic misreadings, and ideological bias. Calling the US “lethargic” in Iraq and Afghanistan ignores the brutal reality of two decades of military intervention, not a lack of willpower. Iran’s interest in nuclear weapons isn’t some irrational hatred of Israel; it’s a classic deterrence strategy, shaped by watching the US topple regimes in Iraq and Libya. You dismiss this with a shrug while ignoring IAEA reports and decades of nuclear hedging.
You also misrepresent diplomatic dynamics. Turkey-Israel relations have been rocky for over a decade, especially after the Gaza flotilla raid. Saudi-Israeli normalization has stalled due to overwhelming regional anger over Gaza. If (when?) Israel moves forward with ethnically cleansing Gaza and the West Bank as the Israeli right and centre want, it will make things even worse. Saying no one besides Israel wants nukes in the region is false. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have made public statements on the matter. Even Turkey has hinted it won’t be left behind. Downplaying North Korea’s deterrent as something the US could wipe out without nukes is reckless fantasy. Seoul would be in ruins before the second wave of bombers took off.
If you’re going to talk strategy, bring facts, not slogans. I said “live by the sword, die by the sword” to point out that violent actions have consequences. You replied with “Allahu Akbar” like I’m some kind of fanatic. That’s not debate, it’s just trolling and deflection. If your instinct is to hear a moral warning and turn it into a caricature, that says more about you than it does about me.
Ps. I edited my previous post to clarify who’s “they”.
Calling the US “lethargic” in Iraq and Afghanistan ignores the brutal reality of two decades of military intervention, not a lack of willpower.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear: by lethargic, I mean since Dubya left office and more so post-2021.
Many Americans, even many MAGAts, would rather the US stay out of the Middle East.
Granted, the wishes of many Americans, even many MAGAts, are probably of little concern to Trump, but thinking of such intrudes on his precious time he spends on golf games, flogging paraphernalia, micro-blogging, and masturbatory rallies.
Iran’s interest in nuclear weapons isn’t some irrational hatred of Israel; it’s a classic deterrence strategy, shaped by watching the US topple regimes in Iraq and Libya.
Their interest is understandable, given the examples you cited, but how would nukes benefit Iran against the US?
Iran is over 3x the population and over 12x the area of North Korea. Crossing over to Iran would not be as easy as crossing the DMZ of a non-nuclear North Korea. Tehran is perhaps over 400 km from the Iran-Iraq border, across the Zagros mountains, whereas Pyongyang is less than 100 km from the sea and less than 150 km from Seoul, much of it at an elevation less than 500 meters. (Though, granted it’s also less than 150 km from the PRC, which, along with Russia, supports it). Any future Douglas MacArthurs (an FDR appointee) would have quite a challenge in Iran even without nukes.
Nukes enhances North Korea’s defences in a way I don’t think it would Iran’s.
Again how would US treatment of Iran-with-nukes be much different than Iran-with-nukes—aside from probably not bombing nuclear-related or ICBM-related sites in Iran?
What if the US assassinated another Iranian general in Baghdad? Would Iran nuke the US?
What if Iran, in solidarity with Gazans and other Palestinians, attacked Israel with missiles and drones, and Israel counterattacked with a little more force? Would they nuke Jerusalem? Tel Aviv? Both?
Libya, while bigger, is, IIUC, mostly desert, with a capital on the Mediterranean cost.
Kadaffy would also have benefit more with having nukes than Iran, though I doubt he would have nuked his protesters.
You also misrepresent diplomatic dynamics. Turkey-Israel relations have been rocky for over a decade, especially after the Gaza flotilla raid.
which was over 15 years ago. Yet, presumably, the embassies in Ankara and Tel Aviv remain open.
Saudi-Israeli normalization has stalled due to overwhelming regional anger over Gaza.
Yes.
If Israel moves forward with ethnically cleansing Gaza and the West Bank as the Israeli right and centre want, will make things even worse.
Which is why they might wait until diplomatic relations with the Kingdom are (well) established.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have made public statements on the matter.
Perhaps, though neither really need nukes as they are essentially American protectorates.
Even Turkey has hinted it won’t be left behind.
They’re in NATO.
Downplaying North Korea’s deterrent as something the US could wipe out without nukes is reckless fantasy.
No, just improbable.
Seoul would be in ruins before the second wave of bombers took off.
Seoul is not an American city, nor is it the only city in South Korea (albeit it is the biggest and the capital); and by bombers, I assume you mean American ones, as North Korea perhaps doesn’t have much in the way of bombers.
If you’re going to talk strategy, bring facts, not slogans.
good advice.
I said “live by the sword, die by the sword” to point out that violent actions have consequences. You replied with “Allahu Akbar” like I’m some kind of fanatic. That’s not debate, it’s just trolling and deflection. If your instinct is to hear a moral warning and turn it into a caricature, that says more about you than it does about me.
What I was getting at is that Iran and some other opponents of the US, particularly the commies and Isalmacists, can also be pretty violent and warlike.
I don’t think so.
I think that the rise of political Islam is a far greater threat from the Middle East.
No it doesn’t.
Why would any Middle Eastern country, besides Israel, want to procure nukes? Aside from nuking Israel, why would Iran need them? To repel invasion? Who would invade them besides a lethargic US that miserably failed in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Pete Hegseth or Donald Rumsfeld: which of these SoSs do you think was/is the bigger idiot?
Turkey has diplomatic relations with Israel and IIUC, Saudi Arabia was close to it until Putin’s 71st birthday and Israel’s response to events of that day, though IMO, it’s been only postponed a few years. Neither Turkey nor SA are on great terms with Iran, and IIUC, Pakistan has nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Whose “they”?
Even with nukes, I doubt North Korea could destroy the US, but the US could destroy North Korea. Indeed, the US might be able to destroy North Korea without nukes.
Just because the Kim gang slipped through the cracks (IIUC Papa Bush and Dubya were too busy with Iraq; Clinton made deals with NK; and during Obama’s presidency, the occupation of Afghanistan and attempted nation-building there continued, Arab Spring fizzled, Islamic State rose, Russia invaded Ukraine and occupied chunks of it, and after 2010, Congress became even more antagonistic) doesn’t mean that the US will allow Iran to develop nukes.
Indeed. Allāh Akbar.
Your response is just a mix of historical inaccuracies, strategic misreadings, and ideological bias. Calling the US “lethargic” in Iraq and Afghanistan ignores the brutal reality of two decades of military intervention, not a lack of willpower. Iran’s interest in nuclear weapons isn’t some irrational hatred of Israel; it’s a classic deterrence strategy, shaped by watching the US topple regimes in Iraq and Libya. You dismiss this with a shrug while ignoring IAEA reports and decades of nuclear hedging.
You also misrepresent diplomatic dynamics. Turkey-Israel relations have been rocky for over a decade, especially after the Gaza flotilla raid. Saudi-Israeli normalization has stalled due to overwhelming regional anger over Gaza. If (when?) Israel moves forward with ethnically cleansing Gaza and the West Bank as the Israeli right and centre want, it will make things even worse. Saying no one besides Israel wants nukes in the region is false. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have made public statements on the matter. Even Turkey has hinted it won’t be left behind. Downplaying North Korea’s deterrent as something the US could wipe out without nukes is reckless fantasy. Seoul would be in ruins before the second wave of bombers took off.
If you’re going to talk strategy, bring facts, not slogans. I said “live by the sword, die by the sword” to point out that violent actions have consequences. You replied with “Allahu Akbar” like I’m some kind of fanatic. That’s not debate, it’s just trolling and deflection. If your instinct is to hear a moral warning and turn it into a caricature, that says more about you than it does about me.
Ps. I edited my previous post to clarify who’s “they”.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear: by lethargic, I mean since Dubya left office and more so post-2021.
Many Americans, even many MAGAts, would rather the US stay out of the Middle East.
Granted, the wishes of many Americans, even many MAGAts, are probably of little concern to Trump, but thinking of such intrudes on his precious time he spends on golf games, flogging paraphernalia, micro-blogging, and masturbatory rallies.
Their interest is understandable, given the examples you cited, but how would nukes benefit Iran against the US?
Iran is over 3x the population and over 12x the area of North Korea. Crossing over to Iran would not be as easy as crossing the DMZ of a non-nuclear North Korea. Tehran is perhaps over 400 km from the Iran-Iraq border, across the Zagros mountains, whereas Pyongyang is less than 100 km from the sea and less than 150 km from Seoul, much of it at an elevation less than 500 meters. (Though, granted it’s also less than 150 km from the PRC, which, along with Russia, supports it). Any future Douglas MacArthurs (an FDR appointee) would have quite a challenge in Iran even without nukes.
Nukes enhances North Korea’s defences in a way I don’t think it would Iran’s.
Again how would US treatment of Iran-with-nukes be much different than Iran-with-nukes—aside from probably not bombing nuclear-related or ICBM-related sites in Iran?
What if the US assassinated another Iranian general in Baghdad? Would Iran nuke the US?
What if Iran, in solidarity with Gazans and other Palestinians, attacked Israel with missiles and drones, and Israel counterattacked with a little more force? Would they nuke Jerusalem? Tel Aviv? Both?
Libya, while bigger, is, IIUC, mostly desert, with a capital on the Mediterranean cost.
Kadaffy would also have benefit more with having nukes than Iran, though I doubt he would have nuked his protesters.
which was over 15 years ago. Yet, presumably, the embassies in Ankara and Tel Aviv remain open.
Yes.
Which is why they might wait until diplomatic relations with the Kingdom are (well) established.
Perhaps, though neither really need nukes as they are essentially American protectorates.
They’re in NATO.
No, just improbable.
Seoul is not an American city, nor is it the only city in South Korea (albeit it is the biggest and the capital); and by bombers, I assume you mean American ones, as North Korea perhaps doesn’t have much in the way of bombers.
good advice.
What I was getting at is that Iran and some other opponents of the US, particularly the commies and Isalmacists, can also be pretty violent and warlike.