Ed Israel/US Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

[The Great Zaganza]

If you want to prevent something from happening, you have to consider what might happen in the future. That's how it works.

slippery slop arguement.

 

[Ziggurat]

Schrodinger's Iran. At the same time a weak incompetent country unable to threaten the US and an existential threat to the whole world that needs to be attacked in the middle of negotiations, civilian causalities be damned.

Iran right now isn't the threat that they were before we attacked them. Can you guess why? And the threat they were before we attacked them isn't the threat they would be a few years down the line if left to continue their armament campaign undisturbed. Is that too complex an idea for you?

I'm also not sure where this idea that you can never attack someone if you're negotiating comes from. It doesn't actually make any sense. Negotiations aren't magic, they aren't some holy ritual. If someone is negotiating with you but the negotiations aren't working, you aren't obliged to keep trying endlessly.

Oh, and lastly, I note that the simplest counter-argument to my prior post would be to simply point out a way in which Iran could escalate. But you didn't even try to do that. I wonder why.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

wrong.
Before, Iran attacked no one, the thread was purely theoretical. Wasps don't sting unless you attack their hive.
Now, the thread to the neighbours it is very real, and the US is both unwilling and unable to defend them sufficiently.

If you rank the danger posed by a country by what, in theory, it could do, then Iran is certainly not on top of that list.
The US was supposed to not go out and look for monsters.

 

[a_unique_person]

And all of it was time limited. So after the end of that time limit, no more inspections, no more limits on stockpiles or centrifuges.

They currently negotiating a new time limited deal.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Iran right now isn't the threat that they were before we attacked them. Can you guess why? And the threat they were before we attacked them isn't the threat they would be a few years down the line if left to continue their armament campaign undisturbed. Is that too complex an idea for you?

I'm also not sure where this idea that you can never attack someone if you're negotiating comes from. It doesn't actually make any sense. Negotiations aren't magic, they aren't some holy ritual. If someone is negotiating with you but the negotiations aren't working, you aren't obliged to keep trying endlessly.

Oh, and lastly, I note that the simplest counter-argument to my prior post would be to simply point out a way in which Iran could escalate. But you didn't even try to do that. I wonder why.

Eh, if Iran had been left to develop their armament undisturbed they'd have been about as dangerous as the other rogue Nuclear Nations like Israel and North Korea. With the difference that Iran in the past 40 years has never directly attacked their neighbours.

And I doubt you'd react the same had Iran attacked US and Israeli negotiators without any prior warning. Civilized nations first break of negotiations, then attack. If it's wrong for one nation, it's wrong for all nations. Or do you feel Hamas did nothing wrong in attacking a civilian festival?

And again, the Trump administration has put me in the position that I would understand if Iran were to launch missiles from some unregistered boat attacking the White House or Mar-a-Lago. As others have noted. It takes special skills to make the horrendous regime of Iran look the reasonable one in this conflict, but Trump has managed.

 

[Ziggurat]

wrong.
Before, Iran attacked no one, the thread was purely theoretical.

Have you forgotten October 7?

If you rank the danger posed by a country by what, in theory, it could do, then Iran is certainly not on top of that list.

That's a transparently stupid metric.

 

[Ziggurat]

Eh, if Iran had been left to develop their armament undisturbed they'd have been about as dangerous as the other rogue Nuclear Nations like Israel and North Korea.

Israel isn't a rogue nation. And North Korea is very dangerous.

With the difference that Iran in the past 40 years has never directly attacked their neighbours.

Using proxies isn't better.

And I doubt you'd react the same had Iran attacked US and Israeli negotiators without any prior warning.

First off, there were warnings. It was widely reported that we were positioning assets like aircraft carriers in the region for a possible attack. This wasn't a secret, this wasn't something the Iranians were unaware of. Second, had Iran attacked us, my reaction wouldn't be based on the timing.

Civilized nations first break of negotiations, then attack.

Why? Seriously, other than giving your enemy more time to prepare, what's the benefit?

If it's wrong for one nation, it's wrong for all nations. Or do you feel Hamas did nothing wrong in attacking a civilian festival?

Well, that's a stupid argument. The problem with Hamas attacking a music festival is the target, not the timing. There was never, ever an acceptable time for them to do that.

And again, the Trump administration has put me in the position that I would understand if Iran were to launch missiles from some unregistered boat attacking the White House or Mar-a-Lago.

Oh, I fully understand our enemies fighting back. But it seems like you're suggesting if that we understand our enemies doing something, we have to side with them. We don't.

 

[Planigale]

Iran right now isn't the threat that they were before we attacked them. Can you guess why? And the threat they were before we attacked them isn't the threat they would be a few years down the line if left to continue their armament campaign undisturbed. Is that too complex an idea for you?

I'm also not sure where this idea that you can never attack someone if you're negotiating comes from. It doesn't actually make any sense. Negotiations aren't magic, they aren't some holy ritual. If someone is negotiating with you but the negotiations aren't working, you aren't obliged to keep trying endlessly.

Oh, and lastly, I note that the simplest counter-argument to my prior post would be to simply point out a way in which Iran could escalate. But you didn't even try to do that. I wonder why.

Most people think that killing people and destroying things unnecessarily is wrong. That resorting to violence, especially war should only be done as a last resort when all other options have been excluded. In the middle of negotiations which independant observers thought were proceeding well is not war as a last resort.

Threat isn't just about means, it is also about opportunity and intent.

The UK has greater means to be threat to the US than Iran, it has greater opportunity, just that it doesn't have the intent.

Iran's intent is probably greater now, it's opportunity is probably greater now given there are more military targets within its opportunity range. Prior to being attacked, what threat was it genuinely to the US? The US continually harks on about old slights from the last century, about embassy hostages, and marines in Lebanon as justification. There was no realistic military threat to the US from Iran. Arguably the war has increased the threat.

It was said at the time that it was a war provoked by an opportunity to murder those who were negotiating in good faith. Almost certainly it was an attempt to derail negotiations and a peaceful outcome. It was a war that even if you felt Iran might move to developing a nuclear bomb was unnecessary because such a move couldn't be made in the immediate future because previous limited US action had disabled Iran's nuclear program.

The decision to launch an agressive war including attacking schools hospitals and infra structure is a war crime; it is what the Nazis were prosecuted for.

 

[Planigale]

Have you forgotten October 7?

That's a transparently stupid metric.

Iran didn't attack anyone on October 7.

 

[Ziggurat]

Iran didn't attack anyone on October 7.

Hamas attacked Israel with Iran's support. The distinction isn't very significant.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Hamas attacked Israel with Iran's support. The distinction isn't very significant.

it is if you are not willing to apply the same standards to the US or Israel.

Are you willing to hold the US responsible for the actions of every militant group it has ever supported ?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Four Iran-linked ships transit Strait of Hormuz, tracking shows

Ship tracking data analysed by BBC Verify shows four Iran-linked ships have crossed the Strait of Hormuz despite Washington’s naval blockade beginning.

Two of those ships had visited Iranian ports according to MarineTraffic.

Bulk carrier, Christianna, crossed the strait on Monday after the blockade began having called at Iran’s Bandar Iman Khomeini,

The Rich Starry, sanctioned by the US for Iran-related trade crosse,

The tanker Murlikishan, which is also under US sanctions for Iran-related trade, sailed from Lanshan in China and headed west through the strait overnight.

Another tanker, Elpis, passed the strait heading east overnight having come from the Iranian port of Bushehr. It is also under US sanctions

Two ships cross Strait of Hormuz after stopping at Iranian ports despite US blockade - follow live

At least two ships have visited Iranian ports while two are linked to China. The US previously said it would stop vessels travelling to or from Iran.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you willing to hold the US responsible for the actions of every militant group it has ever supported ?

Weren't we? As in, didn't other countries treat us as if we were?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Weren't we? As in, didn't other countries treat us as if we were?

obviously not, as the US hasn't been bombed repeatedly or people in the US government arrested when they step on foreign soil.

 

[Ziggurat]

obviously not, as the US hasn't been bombed repeatedly or people in the US government arrested when they step on foreign soil.

That's not obvious at all. We have directly attacked countries and not had that happen. That's more a consequence of our strength making such a response typically ill-advised.

I don't think you actually understand the use of proxies in warfare. Countries don't do it in order to deny responsibility. It primarily achieves two objectives. One, it limits your own casualties. Your proxies may die fighting, but your own people don't. Two, and this was REALLY important during the cold war for BOTH Soviet and US proxies, it limits escalation. Because proxies are much weaker, an attack by a proxy is limited in strength, which caps the escalation threat. We're seeing that in Ukraine, which is acting as a NATO proxy against Russia. We give them plenty of weapons, but as long as it's still Ukrainians fighting, Russia isn't worried that they pose an existential threat. But no NATO country is going to send even a single soldier to fight on the Ukrainian front, because that risks escalation. That risks Russia thinking that the conflict could spiral out of control. But no one is actually confused about the role, OR the responsibility, that NATO countries have in the conflict. No one is actually confused that when Ukraine blows up a Russian tank with a Javelin missile, NATO shares in responsibility.

 

[theprestige]

Iran didn't attack anyone on October 7.

And the US hasn't attacked Iran. Just, you know, some military forces that are organized, funded, supplied, and directed by the US government attacked Iran. Totally different! /s

 

[Steve]

And the US hasn't attacked Iran. Just, you know, some military forces that are organized, funded, supplied, and directed by the US government attacked Iran. Totally different! /s

Occasionally we see a post on this supposed skeptics site that is so bizarre that no response is possible. "/s" not withstanding.

Even Trump's demented thinking isn't this strange

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Sure NATO is at war with Russia, it just suits everyone, including Russia, not to declare so openly because of the likelihood of escalation.
And it still is, hence no fire exchange between Europe and Russia.

Iran funding proxies and Israel assassinating Iranian leaders and scientists was an undeclared war to avoid escalation until Israel decided to attack.
Now it's a Hot War because Israel decided to step across the line.

 

[Ziggurat]

Occasionally we see a post on this supposed skeptics site that is so bizarre that no response is possible. "/s" not withstanding.

Even Trump's demented thinking isn't this strange

Tell me you don't understand sarcasm without telling me you don't understand sarcasm.

 

[Ziggurat]

Iran funding proxies and Israel assassinating Iranian leaders and scientists was an undeclared war to avoid escalation until Israel decided to attack.
Now it's a Hot War because Israel decided to step across the line.

Correct. Iran thought Israel wouldn't escalate. They were wrong. And note, escalation isn't necessarily wrong. It's generally risky, but that's a practical consideration, not some absolute moral rule.