There's also the possibility that Israel doesn't actually have nukes, or has them but they won't actually work. In which case their "neither confirm nor deny" position makes sense. If they don't actually have the means to nuke anyone it might be sensible to never actually threaten to, or else someone might call their bluff!
pretty much no Nation has threatened to use its nukes for anything but retaliation., or to blunt an imminent nuclear attack.
Russia has insinuated several times they will if NATO intervenes in Ukraine.
Israel supports terrorists groups that attack Iran. Israel (mossad) has commited terrorist acts in Iran. Israel has directly attacked Iran over many years. This is not something that has just happened. Hezbollah only formed after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the massacre of Shia civilians by IDF proxy forces as a self defence force and to resist the occupation of Lebanon by Israel. So Israel has attacked Iran directly and indirectly via proxies for many years.
A bit, yeah. You're only repeating the half of the truth you like and waiting for people to spoonfeed you.
This is a rather odd assertion. On what basis do you claim that we ◊◊◊◊◊◊ it up?
The leaked initial DIA report is worthless. The IAEA chief recently made reference to a short time period, but what he said isn't what you're claiming, and it was speculation anyways. This is essentially an ass pull.
That's stupid. The most obvious reason to do it now is that Iran's air defense is currently crippled, making a bombing run lower risk now than it ever has before.
True enough. Not really an argument for not doing it now, though.
Is it a bad idea? I would say that could only be determined by the results afterward. We can only wait and see what happens. But whether it turns out to have been a bad idea (from the perspective of Israel) or not it doesn't really change what I posted, does it? You're not objecting to my assertion that Israel hasn't used nukes, you're complaining because I didn't rush to find a bad thing to say about Israel to balance out that good thing. Not saying something bad about Israel is hardly supporting it.
I think international relations are more complex than that. Simply taking action, even if it wasn't very effective, might itself convey a message. The US has just demonstrated that its willing to get directly involved, that's got to be significant. Although undoubtedly the fact that it was done by the whimsy of a senile maniac might play a role in interpretation of the action.
That's possible, of course. It's also possible that Iran really was close to nukes. Or both could be true. I tend to distrust assumptions that complex events arise from a single cause only.
I cited it once, then defended that citation as it was repeatedly challenged. Hardly a campaign of propaganda there.
How about this: we'll talk about hypothetical future scenarios once they've evolved into being actual past events. It's easier because there will be so many fewer events to talk about if we limit ourselves to the ones that actually happened.
You asked, I answered. I don't particularly feel the need to try to convince you.
Isn't that an argument that Ukraine should never have given up its nukes, since there is no way to make Russia give up theirs?
Absolutely.
I know I won't be getting any evidence for the above but you are aware that the Ukrainian military tries to minimise civilian casualties on all sides whereas the Palestinian military tries to maximise them right?
Because Ukraine protects those. Hamas puts those in danger. The difference has nothing to do with Israel being worse than Russia, and everything to do with Ukraine being better than Hamas.
This is a lie.
And a massive one. Hatred of Israel leads to lies like this.
Which then reinforces the hatred. It's like an Ouroboros of malice and stupidity.
I think you've conflated Gaza with Iran here.
I would be of the opinion that a nuclear backed Iran is less dangerous to the middle east and the world than Israel is. Iran's politics and involvements in the region are defensive in nature, designed to shore up the legitimacy of the regime and maintain the intergrity of the country and its borders. Israel, on the other hand is wholly aggressive, currently expanding its territory at the expense of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria and eyeing lands further afield in Arabia and Mesopotamia. The river meant in the original zionist formulation of "from the river to the sea" is not the Jordan but the Tigris.
No, its true.
