undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjmyeet26d ago0 comments

I just want to expand on this.

1. According to the US and Israel, Iran has been a week away from having nuclear weapons for at least 34 years [1];

2. It's quite clear Iran could've developed nuclear weapons but chose not to. I actually think was a mistake. The real lesson from the so-called War on Terror was that only nuclear weapons will preserve your regime (ie Norht Korea);

3. Israel is a nuclear power. It's widely believed that Israel first obtained weapons grade Uranium by stealing it from the US in the 1960s [2];

4. In a just world, people would hang for what we did to Iran in 1953, 1978-79, the Iran-Iraq War and sanctions (which are a sanitized way of saying "we're starving you"); and

5. The current round of demands include Iran dismantling its ballistic missile program. This is because the 12 day war was a strategic and military disaster for the US and Israel.

Israel has a multi-layered missile defence shield. People usually talk about Iron Dome but that's just for shooting down small rockets. Separate layers exist for long-range and ballistic missiles (eg David's Sling, Arrow-2, Arrow-3). In recent times the US has complemented these with the ship-borne THAAD system.

Even with all this protection, Iran responded to the unprovoked attacks of the 12-day war by sending just enough ballistic missiles to overwhelm the defences, basically saying "if we have to, we can hit Israel".

Many suspect that the real reason the US negotiated an end to the 12 day war was because both Israel and the US were running cirtically low on the munitions for THAAD and Israel's missile defence shield. You can't just quickly make more either. Reportedly that will take over a year to get replacements.

Thing is, pretty much all of this missile defence technology is about to become obsolete once hypersonic missiles become more widespread, which is going to happen pretty soon. I suspect that's a big part of why the US and Israel are now trying so desperately to topple the regime and turn Iran into a fail-state like Somalia or Yemen.

I'm not normally one to encourage nuclear proliferation but when it's the only thing the US will listen to, what choice do countries have?

[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-n...

[2]: https://thebulletin.org/2014/04/did-israel-steal-bomb-grade-...

0 comments

flyinglizard26d ago

Yes, because "what choice did Iran have" other than:

1. Routinely calling for death to Israel and America, turning it into part of the national curriculum and sowing hate

2. Funding, training, supplying and directing multiple violent proxy organizations around the region which attacked Israel and undermined their own countries (Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in West Bank and Gaza, other organizations in Iraq)

3. Enriching Uranium to clearly non-civilian grade in multiple militarily hardened facilities;

4. Directly attacking multiple Jewish targets around the world (like the AMIA and then embassy bombings in Argentina)

5. Attacking neighboring countries with ballistic and cruise missiles, like the attacks on Saudi Aramco in 2019

6. Holding international shipping and energy markets hostage by threatening to attack ships and tankers in the Persian Gulf

7. Abusing their own citizens, including public executions, persecutions and extreme violence

8. Providing support to Russia in their efforts in Ukraine, and especially drones used for indiscriminate dumb attack waves against civilians and infrastructure

Now we have people arguing that if they had just gotten nukes then they could have continued doing all of that.

Ray2026d ago

> Now we have people arguing that if they had just gotten nukes then they could have continued doing all of that.

And where are they wrong?

JumpCrisscross26d ago

> where are they wrong?

Probably in all of it. Iran wouldn't have a MAD arsenal, they'd have a small handful that they could pop on a ballistic. We know we can shoot down Iran's missiles. And we know they can't reach America. I'm entirely unconvinced that we wouldn't have launched an attack on Iran even if they had nuclear weapons, because we think we can intercept them, and if we can't, they aren't hitting the homeland.

2 more replies

etc-hosts26d ago

> 4. Directly attacking multiple Jewish targets around the world (like the AMIA and then embassy bombings in Argentina)

Why would Iran attack Argentina? There's plenty of Jewish Iranian citizens. Did they run out of people to attack?

JumpCrisscross26d ago

> Why would Iran attack Argentina?

There is a hardline element in the IRGC that personally profits from autarky. If the Iranian markets opened to the world, it would decimate their incomes.

rgoulter26d ago

> Thing is, pretty much all of this missile defence technology is about to become obsolete once hypersonic missiles become more widespread, which is going to happen pretty soon.

I think you'll have to be more specific.

Or I guess to compare with your other observation: """Even with all this protection, Iran [sent] enough ballistic missiles to overwhelm the defences""" -- It's not a binary of "have missile defense or not => every missile will be shot down". An amount of missile defense will make it harder for missiles to successfully hit a target.

Similarly with hypersonic missiles, it's not the binary of "I have a missile that's difficult to defend against, I win".

Having a sword which can defeat a shield isn't in itself sufficient to obsolete the shield. (Infantry can be killed with bullets, yet infantry remain an important part of fighting despite that).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse