I mean, those were in retaliation for the bombing of their embassy and an assassination in their capital, which are both also acts of war (which isn’t to say those Israeli actions were or weren’t justified). I think you’d be on much firmer ground using the massacres on Oct. 7th as the start of hostilities.
You make a case for action, but not a strong one for military action. The US was negotiating a new deal with Iran. There was a deal before. There is considerable doubt as to whether the nuclear programme can be severely damaged without bombing the Fordow site, and that depends on the whims of Trump. This attack involves the risk that efforts to build a bomb are accelerated. It contributes to the growing irrelevance of international law. And people are being killed, and - presumably - attitudes towards Israel are hardening further. If you are assessing risk and strategy, surely all of this needs to be put into the balance.
I've addressed the flaws of the previous deal in the previous piece, most importantly the sunset clause and the fact that it made it easier for the Iranians to strengthen the 'Axis of Resistance,' which led to October 7. There's a risk vis-a-vis Fordow but no certainty - this is the case for any course of action, whether military or otherwise. Same applies to the accelerationist thesis (which I think severely understates the impact of what has happened thus far although of course we'll wait and see). Regarding attitudes towards Israel, Iran is a country a long way away from Israel that is opposed to our existence because it is run by an Islamic imperialist regime, and backs this up in deed (unlike Pakistan, which has a nuclear bomb and hates Israel but is not committed to our destruction). Extraordinary efforts are employed to deny or justify this fact (note the Guardian's recent coverage for example, from which one would barely be aware of it), and to be frank this hardens our attitudes further in turn. Also, the norm throughout Jewish history has been for the non-Jewish world to lie about us and accuse us of some sort of crime or another for which we deserve to be removed from the community of nations. And after October 7 nobody making this argument criticized the Palestinians for making Israelis hate them more - rather they said that the extent of the atrocities were simply proof of how diabolically we had treated the Palestinians. So I think these inconsistencies need to be considered when making the 'everyone will hate Israel more' argument, which to be honest - I know this isn't your intention personally - just comes across as a form of emotional blackmail. I also think that those who say they are opposed to Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb (which must mean denying them the ability to obtain a nuclear bomb) should make it clear at what point they would also support military action, i.e. when would it be clear to them that negotiations were not going to achieve their goal, to allay the suspicion that what they are really opposed to is any form of military action no matter the circumstances.
I´d appreciate it if you would just point me to the article where you address the points I raised, in a very different tone. Most of your reply here has nothing to do with anything I said - a great deal of it is projection. As ever, Israel´s critics - and by implication, here, me - are lumped together in one indistinguishable mass (see the lines following "And after October 7th..."). I have never, ever, minimised my disgust for the atrocities commited that day, or absolved the perpetrators of responsibility. And I would happily grant both Israelis and Palestinians the right to defend themselves within the bounds of international law, and yet question whether that was strategically wise in particular instances. Incidentally, I notice that you quote in that article an unabashed racist (the author of "Nonzionism") who in one of their pieces describes the Palestinians as "half devil, half child" (I paraphrase, but the words are similar). Are you comfortable with that?
If the Israeli government isn’t paying you for these, they should be (entirely sincere and intended as a compliment)
I would hate to be paid by the Israeli government. Their policies have contributed greatly to the terrible positions we find ourselves in.
But I thank you for the compliment!!!
Iran already attacked Israel directly in 2024, launching the two largest missile barrages in history.
Iran already declared war. Waiting 9 months to respond is smart, not warmongering.
I mean, those were in retaliation for the bombing of their embassy and an assassination in their capital, which are both also acts of war (which isn’t to say those Israeli actions were or weren’t justified). I think you’d be on much firmer ground using the massacres on Oct. 7th as the start of hostilities.
You make a case for action, but not a strong one for military action. The US was negotiating a new deal with Iran. There was a deal before. There is considerable doubt as to whether the nuclear programme can be severely damaged without bombing the Fordow site, and that depends on the whims of Trump. This attack involves the risk that efforts to build a bomb are accelerated. It contributes to the growing irrelevance of international law. And people are being killed, and - presumably - attitudes towards Israel are hardening further. If you are assessing risk and strategy, surely all of this needs to be put into the balance.
I've addressed the flaws of the previous deal in the previous piece, most importantly the sunset clause and the fact that it made it easier for the Iranians to strengthen the 'Axis of Resistance,' which led to October 7. There's a risk vis-a-vis Fordow but no certainty - this is the case for any course of action, whether military or otherwise. Same applies to the accelerationist thesis (which I think severely understates the impact of what has happened thus far although of course we'll wait and see). Regarding attitudes towards Israel, Iran is a country a long way away from Israel that is opposed to our existence because it is run by an Islamic imperialist regime, and backs this up in deed (unlike Pakistan, which has a nuclear bomb and hates Israel but is not committed to our destruction). Extraordinary efforts are employed to deny or justify this fact (note the Guardian's recent coverage for example, from which one would barely be aware of it), and to be frank this hardens our attitudes further in turn. Also, the norm throughout Jewish history has been for the non-Jewish world to lie about us and accuse us of some sort of crime or another for which we deserve to be removed from the community of nations. And after October 7 nobody making this argument criticized the Palestinians for making Israelis hate them more - rather they said that the extent of the atrocities were simply proof of how diabolically we had treated the Palestinians. So I think these inconsistencies need to be considered when making the 'everyone will hate Israel more' argument, which to be honest - I know this isn't your intention personally - just comes across as a form of emotional blackmail. I also think that those who say they are opposed to Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb (which must mean denying them the ability to obtain a nuclear bomb) should make it clear at what point they would also support military action, i.e. when would it be clear to them that negotiations were not going to achieve their goal, to allay the suspicion that what they are really opposed to is any form of military action no matter the circumstances.
I´d appreciate it if you would just point me to the article where you address the points I raised, in a very different tone. Most of your reply here has nothing to do with anything I said - a great deal of it is projection. As ever, Israel´s critics - and by implication, here, me - are lumped together in one indistinguishable mass (see the lines following "And after October 7th..."). I have never, ever, minimised my disgust for the atrocities commited that day, or absolved the perpetrators of responsibility. And I would happily grant both Israelis and Palestinians the right to defend themselves within the bounds of international law, and yet question whether that was strategically wise in particular instances. Incidentally, I notice that you quote in that article an unabashed racist (the author of "Nonzionism") who in one of their pieces describes the Palestinians as "half devil, half child" (I paraphrase, but the words are similar). Are you comfortable with that?
I address the flaws with the JCPOA here: https://loveoftheland.substack.com/p/the-road-to-rising-lion, and assessed the risks here: https://loveoftheland.substack.com/p/bibis-gambit. And I didn't quote NonZionism's views on Palestinians. Nor his views on other Jews, incidentally, which often employ a similar tone. Quoting an author on one subject doesn't imply any endorsement of their views on other subjects.
Also this is excellent: https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/why-did-israel-strike-iran-now
An excellent analysis, Brigadier General Stein. And 200 UN staff came to hear Danny Danon’s briefing yesterday .
“Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan”.