Israel strikes Iran - 06-12-25

[obsidian]

It's called a pre-emptive strike — but what if Iran decides to act first? Every nation has the right to defend its survival.

https://www.rt.com/news/619057-israel-strikes-iran-reports/

Explosions and missile interceptions reported in Tehran on Friday

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz announced on Friday that the Israeli Air Force has conducted a “preemptive” strike in Iran.

Iranian media reported explosions in Tehran, as well as missile interceptions.

An emergency situation has been declared across Israel. “Following the State of Israel’s preemptive strike against Iran, a missile and drone attack against the State of Israel and its civilian population is expected in the immediate future,” Katz said.

The attack comes after weeks of simmering tensions following the collapse of renewed negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. Multiple news outlets reported last month that Israel had discussed potential strikes on Iranian nuclear sites with the United States.

US President Donald Trump recently accused Tehran of “slow-walking” the negotiations and reiterated that his objective is the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program. Iran has denied pursuing nuclear weapons, maintaining that its nuclear activities are solely for civilian purposes.

[GymnJuice]

Hopefully we can stay out of it.

[obsidian]

The US and Israel say Iran mustn’t get nukes — and threaten to destroy them to prove the point. But if you’re being threatened with annihilation, wouldn’t you want nukes too? The hypocrisy is nuclear.

Iran can’t have nukes — so we might have to bomb them.’ That logic is why Iran wants nukes. The bully says: disarm or else — and calls you the threat.

[obsidian]

Hopefully we can stay out of it.

Nothing says ‘you don’t need nukes’ like constant threats of war. But sure, Iran’s the irrational one.

We threaten to bomb Iran to stop them from wanting nukes — and then act shocked when they want nukes. Genius diplomacy.

Iran doesn’t need nukes, they just need to trust the countries openly talking about bombing them. Totally reasonable.

[IroNat]

The US and Israel say Iran mustn’t get nukes — and threaten to destroy them to prove the point. But if you’re being threatened with annihilation, wouldn’t you want nukes too? The hypocrisy is nuclear.

Iran can’t have nukes — so we might have to bomb them.’ That logic is why Iran wants nukes. The bully says: disarm or else — and calls you the threat.

Neo-Con Logic.

[GymnJuice]

Nothing says ‘you don’t need nukes’ like constant threats of war. But sure, Iran’s the irrational one.

We threaten to bomb Iran to stop them from wanting nukes — and then act shocked when they want nukes. Genius diplomacy.

Iran doesn’t need nukes, they just need to trust the countries openly talking about bombing them. Totally reasonable.

All countries should want nukes. They're a great deterrent. All countries who already have them should try to prevent others from obtaining them to keep their advantage. I think it is both logical and hypocritical, but I'm a cynic. 

[1Patrick]

Hopefully Hadi’s new gym is still intact.
In all seriousness Trump needs to stay TF away from this one.

[obsidian]

Hopefully Hadi’s new gym is still intact.
In all seriousness Trump needs to stay TF away from this one.

Trump has been a disappointment. Everyday he appears more like a puppet. I'd like to be proven wrong. But he needs to lead with his actions.

[Van_Bilderass]

In all seriousness Trump needs to stay TF away from this one.

How can he? The US and Israel are intertwined, hard to tell them apart. There is no unilateral in this imo.

This could be a total nightmare for the world. Iran retaliates and nukes are dropped and then... what are Russia and China going to do?

IMO this has little or nothing to do with Iran having nukes. This could be controlled and Iran was/is ready for strict inspections. This is about Israel wanting to be the ME hegemon.

[Grape Ape]

Nothing says ‘you don’t need nukes’ like constant threats of war. But sure, Iran’s the irrational one.

We threaten to bomb Iran to stop them from wanting nukes — and then act shocked when they want nukes. Genius diplomacy.

Iran doesn’t need nukes, they just need to trust the countries openly talking about bombing them. Totally reasonable.

When we fail diplomatically to stop them producing nukes, you use force to stop it.

Stop sponsoring terrorism, stop working towards getting a nuke, and you don't get bombed.

Iran used to be a friggin' tourist destination.  The mullahs have destroyed it.

[Van_Bilderass]

When we fail diplomatically to stop them producing nukes, you use force to stop it.

Stop sponsoring terrorism, stop working towards getting a nuke, and you don't get bombed.

Iran used to be a friggin' tourist destination.  The mullahs have destroyed it.

Just like when Gaddafi stopped his program... ended with him getting a bayonet up his ass. So much for doing it the diplomatic way. And Hillary laughed... that bitch.

Iran was the last on the 7 countries list that Wesley Clark talked about. Netanyahu's plan.

[Never1AShow]

Don't care.  No nukes for Iran.

[Ron]

Stunned here watching what is going on...

Axis of Resistance, loose and informal military network of militant groups, which bill themselves as resistance forces, and state-controlled armed forces in the Middle East that are supported by Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). In addition to the IRGC, the axis comprised of Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, certain militias in Iraq, and Houthi forces in Yemen.

Israel, US, many Arab countries that are Sunni, India, the EU and many other countries needed these guys to be done with so a new age can come to the Middle East. Maybe one of peace in the future.   

Syria - done
Hezbollah in Lebanon - done
Hamas in Gaza -  almost done
Hoothis in Yemen - almost done
and last ... Iran... the supplier of all of these... 

Iran was the last on the 7 countries list that Wesley Clark talked about.

In a statement attributed to Wikipedia, General Wesley Clark mentioned a plan to target seven countries, beginning with Iraq and including Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. This plan was part of a longer, five-year campaign, according to Clark.

[Van_Bilderass]

Israel, US, many Arab countries that are Sunni, India, the EU and many other countries needed these guys to be done with so a new age can come to the Middle East. Maybe one of peace in the future.   

Yes we know Israel and the US love the Sunni because they are so peaceful. Except these are all the ones who attacked the US, the ISIS (which Israel backs even now in Gaza), and all these radical islamist groups. Al-Sharaa, a Sunni, killed Americans in Iraq but now Trump is praising him, calling him handsome. The US and Israel funded all these terrorist groups in Syria to overthrow Assad... because the Sunni are so peaceful

It has nothing to do with peace, they want maximum war and terror in the Islamic countries. Trump said he wanted to see Iran thrive and prosper... what a load of crap. The goal is simply to cause chaos, to make them weak.

[Ron]

Yes we know Israel and the US love the Sunni because they are so peaceful. Except these are all the ones who attacked the US, the ISIS (which Israel backs even now in Gaza), and all these radical islamist groups. Al-Sharaa, a Sunni, killed Americans in Iraq but now Trump is praising him, calling him handsome. The US and Israel funded all these terrorist groups in Syria to overthrow Assad... because the Sunni are so peaceful It has nothing to do with peace, they want maximum war and terror in the Islamic countries. Trump said he wanted to see Iran thrive and prosper... what a load of crap. The goal is simply to cause chaos, to make them weak.

Al-Sharaa, a Sunni - might have turned to trying to do something for Syria instead of destroying it when he overthrew Assad. Maybe he realized there is a better way than Jihad and Matrydom.  For the people of Syria, to grow. People can change.   If Hamas agreed to release the hostages, stop calling for the destruction of Israel, and wanted something better, than maybe things can change.  Even now, they are fighting and killing other clan factions in Gaza.

[Brenda Steunbeer]

The US and Israel say Iran mustn’t get nukes — and threaten to destroy them to prove the point. But if you’re being threatened with annihilation, wouldn’t you want nukes too? The hypocrisy is nuclear.

Iran can’t have nukes — so we might have to bomb them.’ That logic is why Iran wants nukes. The bully says: disarm or else — and calls you the threat.

Your "logic" is flawed. There is no existential threat to Iran. To Israel there is. Iran has stated many times it wants to destroy the entire state of Israel, they make no secret of it. So Israel has every right to prevent that from happening

Also: if Iran develops nukes and several get into the hands of terrorist organizations, Western countries also are at immense risk. Not only Israel. Israel is doing the dirty work for us. As usual the radical left pro islamisation EU will accuse Israel of everything, without the EU ever wanting to spend on defense. The EU prefers the American taxpayer to pay for Europe's safety

[obsidian]

Your "logic" is flawed. There is no existential threat to Iran. To Israel there is. Iran has stated many times it wants to destroy the entire state of Israel, they make no secret of it. So Israel has every right to prevent that from happening

Also: if Iran develops nukes and several get into the hands of terrorist organizations, Western countries also are at immense risk. Not only Israel. Israel is doing the dirty work for us. As usual the radical left pro islamisation EU will accuse Israel of everything, without the EU ever wanting to spend on defense. The EU prefers the American taxpayer to pay for Europe's safety

The idea that Iran poses “no existential threat” ignores the reality that they’ve been under constant threat of regime change or attack for decades — from nuclear-armed powers, no less. That is an existential threat.

Yes, Iran has made hostile statements — but so has Israel, and the U.S. has actually overthrown governments in the region. If preemptive threats justify nukes, then Iran has just as much logic for wanting them as Israel does for stopping them. That’s the hypocrisy.

And the “terrorist handoff” argument? It’s speculative. The only country in the Middle East with undeclared nukes and a history of military preemption is Israel. Yet we never question their nukes.

If nuclear non-proliferation is the goal, threatening countries with annihilation isn’t how you get there — it’s how you make sure they want the bomb even more.

[obsidian]

Don't care.  No nukes for Iran.

We say Iran can’t have nukes while pointing nukes at them. Irony’s gone nuclear.

[obsidian]

Stunned here watching what is going on...

Axis of Resistance, loose and informal military network of militant groups, which bill themselves as resistance forces, and state-controlled armed forces in the Middle East that are supported by Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). In addition to the IRGC, the axis comprised of Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, certain militias in Iraq, and Houthi forces in Yemen.

Israel, US, many Arab countries that are Sunni, India, the EU and many other countries needed these guys to be done with so a new age can come to the Middle East. Maybe one of peace in the future.   

Syria - done
Hezbollah in Lebanon - done
Hamas in Gaza -  almost done
Hoothis in Yemen - almost done
and last ... Iran... the supplier of all of these... 




In a statement attributed to Wikipedia, General Wesley Clark mentioned a plan to target seven countries, beginning with Iraq and including Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. This plan was part of a longer, five-year campaign, according to Clark.

Funny how “peace” always seems to require one side’s total destruction.

You can’t bomb your way to a stable Middle East. Dismantling every actor Iran supports doesn’t end the conflict — it just removes any balance of power. What comes next? Unchecked domination? Occupation? More resentment? More blowback?

Also worth noting: every time someone says “we’re almost done” with a group, it usually means a new one is about to rise from the rubble. The region’s not a video game — you don’t beat the “final boss” and roll credits.

If peace is the goal, maybe stop trying to achieve it through annihilation.

[obsidian]

Just like when Gaddafi stopped his program... ended with him getting a bayonet up his ass. So much for doing it the diplomatic way. And Hillary laughed... that bitch.

Iran was the last on the 7 countries list that Wesley Clark talked about. Netanyahu's plan.

A man was sodomized with a blade and executed on camera. She laughed about it. If that were my blood, I wouldn’t forgive. I wouldn’t forget. And I sure as hell wouldn’t move on.

[Brenda Steunbeer]

The idea that Iran poses “no existential threat” ignores the reality that they’ve been under constant threat of regime change or attack for decades — from nuclear-armed powers, no less. That is an existential threat.

Yes, Iran has made hostile statements — but so has Israel, and the U.S. has actually overthrown governments in the region. If preemptive threats justify nukes, then Iran has just as much logic for wanting them as Israel does for stopping them. That’s the hypocrisy.

And the “terrorist handoff” argument? It’s speculative. The only country in the Middle East with undeclared nukes and a history of military preemption is Israel. Yet we never question their nukes.

If nuclear non-proliferation is the goal, threatening countries with annihilation isn’t how you get there — it’s how you make sure they want the bomb even more.

Israel has had a nuclear weapon since 1966. Israel has never stated they want to destroy the country of Iran. They just don't want the crazy ayatollahs to support hezbollah, hamas, houthis etc
And more importantly they don't want nuclear weapons on the hands of religious fundamentalist muslims. Israel is a small country, it only takes one nuke to vaporise it.

If the 9/11 terrorists had a nuke at their disposal, they would have used it. New York City, or another major American city, would be gone. The implications of such a action would be off the scales. Both in loss of lives, but also economically / socially.

[obsidian]

Israel has had a nuclear weapon since 1966. Israel has never stated they want to destroy the country of Iran. They just don't want the crazy ayatollahs to support hezbollah, hamas, houthis etc
And more importantly they don't want nuclear weapons on the hands of religious fundamentalist muslims. Israel is a small country, it only takes one nuke to vaporise it.

If the 9/11 terrorists had a nuke at their disposal, they would have used it. New York City, or another major American city, would be gone. The implications of such a action would be off the scales. Both in loss of lives, but also economically / socially.

Israel doesn’t have to say it wants to destroy Iran — it’s backed covert operations, assassinations, and cyberattacks against Iranian scientists and infrastructure. That’s not peacekeeping — that’s warfare.

And yes, Israel is small — but so are plenty of countries that don’t get to stockpile nukes without scrutiny. The concern over “religious fundamentalists” having nukes ignores the fact that Israel is a nuclear-armed religious state too. The double standard isn’t about religion — it’s about power.

As for 9/11 — it was horrific, but not committed by Iran. Bringing it up to justify preventing Iran from nuclear self-defense is a distraction. You don’t stop proliferation by threatening countries — you cause it. Iran didn’t build a bomb after the nuclear deal; it accelerated efforts after it was torn up.

Fear of the worst-case scenario can’t replace policy based on fairness — or we’ll keep repeating the same cycle of threats, escalation, and war.

[obsidian]

If the 9/11 terrorists had a nuke at their disposal, they would have used it. New York City, or another major American city, would be gone. The implications of such a action would be off the scales. Both in loss of lives, but also economically / socially.

The U.S. is the only nation to ever drop nuclear bombs — not in theory, not in fear, but in action. On Japan. Twice. Remember that when talking about who “can’t be trusted” with nukes.

[Humble Narcissist]

All countries should want nukes. They're a great deterrent. All countries who already have them should try to prevent others from obtaining them to keep their advantage. I think it is both logical and hypocritical, but I'm a cynic. 

Agreed. There would be no Ukraine vs Russia war if Ukraine had kept their nukes. Nuclear warheads are the biggest peacemakers the world has ever known.

[Raymondo]

obsidian, the Russia Today mouthpiece conveniently sidesteps the fact that the destruction of Israel is enshrined Iranian policy.