Mr. Netanyahu’s office said that Iran had fired missiles after the cease-fire took effect, and that the Israeli military had retaliated by striking a radar system near Tehran. Iran’s military denied violating the cease-fire, and Mr. Netanyahu’s statement indicated that Israel’s retaliation was limited. That appeared to suggest that the two sides — both of which claim to have prevailed in the conflict — want the truce to hold. In a Truth Social post, Mr. Trump said that Israel “is not going to attack Iran” and that “all planes will turn around and head home.”
June 24, 2025
"That appeared to suggest that the two sides... want the truce to hold."
NYT:
Posts
96 comments:
Well, it appears those larger-than-SW-Asia-concerns are manifesting. Future innings remain, possibly even extras.
The ride never ends.
“An Iranian moderate is one who has run out of ammunition.” H. Kissinger. He also asked: If Iran gets nukes can Israel wait until Iran strikes first?
"He also asked: If Iran gets nukes can Israel wait until Iran strikes first?"
Better question, since Israel got nukes (illegaly), how long till others try obtaining them (same...)?
Russia and China are even more interested than Inga in this regard at continuing and the mullahs remaining a lever against the US.
Russia is going to have to pay if they want to keep their bases in Syria. China gets to pay the same price we do for oil now.
As usual Trump’s domestic political opponents and Russian and Chinese interests always seem to align.
RideSpaceMountain said...
"He also asked: If Iran gets nukes can Israel wait until Iran strikes first?"
Better question, since Israel got nukes (illegaly), how long till others try obtaining them (same...)?
If Israel gets rid of their nukes and disarms what is the end result?
If Iran disarms what is the result?
Be honest now.
If the Iranian regime survives this, and their priorities are simply strengthened rather than realigned, then America "doesn't know what the fuck it's doing". Seems so regardless of who gets elected.
Oh, what a tangled web they weave...
Neo-Cons practicing to deceive...
Enjoy watching the liberal media root for a breakdown of the ceasefire.
"If Israel gets rid of their nukes and disarms what is the end result?
If Iran disarms what is the result?
Be honest now."
They keep fighting but without a nuclear Sword of Damocles hanging over the world's collective head. Which - as I've said - I'm perfectly fine with.
They can throw everything and the kitchen sink at each other as long as there's no chance it's WMDs. Incidentally, we've proven that we're ok with this since it is - after all - mostly our conventional weapons Israel's been using to do it since, well, forever.
I understand your frustration. But You aren’t being honest.
If Iran disarms there is peace.
If Israel disarms they get wiped out.
None of your whining will change anything unless you start criticizing the process we are in from a position based in reality.
This is a Gordian knot situation. High hopes and low expectations is the proper attitude.
@Achilles, I value your feedback, but your characterization of anything deviating from your position and that of many others as "whining" is not helpful when everyone is making pretty much the same predictions with far less than perfect information on this midwestern news and law forum.
From my perspective, there's only one country that is being forcefully disarmed and we're actively helping to change its regime, and it isn't Israel.
The more and more people argue about this, the more and more it really does appear Israel is not an independent country. Just how much more help is she going to need? How much longer does big brother need to hover over her and keep her safe? What did she really get nuclear weapons for if she's got her America sugar-daddy watching her back all the time?
Be honest now.
Peace between an Aryan and Jewish nation in our time.
Peace between Pakistan and India.
Peace between Congo and Rwanda, too.
Dousing fires while Newsom fiddles and Bass strums a DEIst cacophony.
Forward and onward. #HateLovesAbortion
Howard said...
This is a Gordian knot situation. High hopes and low expectations is the proper attitude.
With a dose of patience.
It has been 13 days.
This is where Israel continuously blows it. Trump had a cease fire deal going and the Iranians fired a couple of harmless missiles after the ceasefire deadline. Israel should have taken the moral high ground and tried to make the cease fire work, but, like the Iranians, they have to act like a butthurt kid in the schoolyard and retaliate. (Plus, it was kind of a dick move for Israel to step up their attacks massively right before the cease fire was supposed to take place.) Trump really needs to humiliate Israel for this and punish them in a meaningful way.
"What did she really get nuclear weapons for if she's got her America sugar-daddy watching her back all the time?"
You want Israel to nuke Iran? I'm sure you don't, but that's what you're arguing for here.
Seems to me Israel has been fighting it's own war, but it didn't have the bunker buster bomb needed to destroy Iran's nuclear facility, so it asked the US for help. That's better than using a nuclear weapon to do it themselves, IMO.
"Trump really needs to humiliate Israel for this and punish them in a meaningful way."
Won't happen. Israel is the only kid on the Middle-Eastern bus that can get the school bus driver to stop the bus and come to her defense specifically.
We're Israel's bouncer...what we earn for the privilege continues to mystify me.
“Iran’s military denied violating the cease-fire…”
Why don’t we know if they did or not? We must have satellites, spy planes, radar, etc. constantly watching Iran.
“The DHS is rounding up Iranian illegals, at least until a federal judge orders them to all be set free to plant their bombs and execute their targets.”
District Court judge issues said order in 3…2…1
"...so it asked the US for help."
I'm A) not sure that actually happened and B) like LoudDogBlog I'd just be very interested in hearing us tell them "no" for once. I don't think that has ever happened.
I wonder if Israel would throw a temper-tantrum. I'm willing to find out.
@RideSpaceMountain
I am giving you more respect than most here. I somewhat apologize for the use of whining but I chose that word specifically. No country has advanced their interests in the past 13 days than the United States.
Israel has done the US a massive favor here. Israel is doing all of the work. They prepped the space so that we could come in at the end and take all of the credit.
You people have to understand and recognize how much more leverage and power we have with China, Russia, and Europe compared to 13 days ago. They have all been using Iran as their heir primary wedge against the United States.
China is going to pay what we pay for oil now.
Russia is going to have to beg to keep their bases in Syria.
Europe can pay us market rate for oil instead of the discount price from Iran and they can get wrecked.
This is what an actual America First foreign policy looks like.
And I fully expect some rebuilding contracts with Iran in exchange for refilling the national oil reserves.
This title is an attempt to minimize Trump's triumph through false equivalency. No, everyone cannot reasonably claim to have won. Trump and Israel won. And this is despite Democrats' overwhelming desire to see him fail.
"I'd just be very interested in hearing us tell them "no" for once. I don't think that has ever happened."
I think Trump told Israel "No" yesterday. A ceasefire is not in Israel's interest. I think Trump imposed it on them.
@Achilles, if all those things happen I will be the very first person to say you were right and I was wrong and I will eat my words. Crtl-C/V my comments. I'm a man of my word.
I doubt seriously all or even most of those things will happen, so I hope others will similarly grab a slice of humble pie if their Bayesian models fail.
“From my perspective, there's only one country that is being forcefully disarmed and we're actively helping to change its regime, and it isn't Israel.”
There’s only one country over there that wouldn’t benefit from having its regime changed, and that is Israel.
“What did she really get nuclear weapons for if she's got her America sugar-daddy watching her back all the time?”
Because everyone knows by now that America can’t be trusted. Just ask Iraq, Afghanistan, South Vietnam, etc.
"There’s only one country over there that wouldn’t benefit from having its regime changed, and that is Israel."
Lol, that's a crock, and from what I understand, Netanyahu barely survived just that a couple days ago, something half of Israel almost got not long before this farce. The world may never know....
"I wonder if Israel would throw a temper-tantrum. I'm willing to find out."
Even if that entailed Israel nuking Iran? There's some things here I don't think you've thought through.
It's been an astonishing couple of weeks in the Middle East.
It's fun to be cynical, but for now, we should hope that Israel has blown up enough stuff and Iran is getting tired of fomenting chaos.
Ratcheting back the aggression won't be smooth and easy, but Trump is pushing in the right direction.
"...launching attacks after his cease-fire announcement. Iran denied violating the truce and Israel’s retaliation appeared limited, suggesting that the deal remained intact for now, dammit."
Just completing their sentence for them. I think that using the profanity is Trump's way of signalling Israel, 'You've punished them to the point where they can no longer really defend themselves, and they are in a position that you can eliminate virtually any threat or any person, at will. Do NOT lose sight of what we've done for you, and do NOT assume that I cannot change my mind about you.'
As usual Trump’s domestic political opponents and Russian and Chinese interests always seem to align.
Funny isn't it. By the way, Gulf War 1 was over Kuwait. Gulf War 2 was the Saddam dance. Are y'all sure Israel is the only reason we ever get involved?
Killing Kaddafi was a neocon coup. Was that at Israel's behest? Was Obama's 30-day bombing spree over Libya also at Israel's command?
I don't think you guys have thought THAT through all the way either.
"Even if that entailed Israel nuking Iran?"
Here we go again. If that had happened, Israel would've been the 2nd country since the USA to engage in FIRST OFFENSIVE USE of a nuclear weapon, something that regardless of your feelings about the first time, would be a global catastrophe. Prepare for breaking levees...as if that won't "spread" like geopolitical 'ebola'.
It sounds like you'd think that would be justified, something I don't think you've thought through and would be roundly condemned by MOST of the world's people. Is that really your position? Israel has "the right" of first use in offensive operations?
Aggie said…"Do NOT lose sight of what we've done for you, and do NOT assume that I cannot change my mind about you."
I think that's what's going on. I think Trump decided bombing Iran's nuclear facility was in both the US's and Israel's best interest (and I would agree with that), and now he's telling Israel to back off.
Aggie said…"Do NOT lose sight of what we've done for you, and do NOT assume that I cannot change my mind about you."
I think that's what's going on. I think Trump decided bombing Iran's nuclear facility was in both the US's and Israel's best interest (and I would agree with that), and now he's telling Israel to back off.
"Is that really your position? Israel has "the right" of first use in offensive operations?"
You're just flat out wrong. Where the hell did I say that?
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
Killing Kaddafi was a neocon coup. Was that at Israel's behest? Was Obama's 30-day bombing spree over Libya also at Israel's command?
I don't think you guys have thought THAT through all the way either.
We killed Kaddafi at France’s behest. Libya was making it difficult for France to manage the Sahel region. The Globalists are actually colonial powers still. They just hide it better now.
Thank you.
By making the cease fire announcement online, Trump may have rushed to prevent another last minute attack by both sides, who may have believed they still had sometime before a formal announcement. I mean, I don't know what Truth tweets are real and what's fake. That is not the setting for making an announcement of that import.
RSM: "I wonder if Israel would throw a temper-tantrum. I'm willing to find out."
OG Mike: "Even if that entailed Israel nuking Iran?"
I read that as "temper-tantrum by Israel" possibly "entails Israel nuking Iran". Seeing as "first use by Israel" is sine qua non in this case, please tell me how that doesn't look remarkably like your position, maybe I misread you?
Israel's use of a nuclear weapon first is absolutely unacceptable to 90% of the globe - for any reason - and is a nonnegotiably unacceptable action for the vast majority of the world's nations. There is absolutely no offensive circumstance that could justify it, and let's be real we all know that.
I don't understand your logic, RSM. I don't even know where to start.
"I read that as "temper-tantrum by Israel" possibly "entails Israel nuking Iran"."
Yes, WHICH IS FUCKING BAD, YOU MORON! And you're the one who "is willing to find out". Yet I give you the benefit of the doubt and don't think you want it to happen.
I'm sorry I precipitated a temper-tantrum OG Mike. Please don't "nuke" a moron like me. Thanks for clarifying though.
That's all I needed.
Everyone tries to get in a play before the clock runs out, it is standard practice. I'll wait a couple days to see how it goes.
“Killing Kaddafi”… say, wasn’t that one of those Bill “Luffa” O’Reilly books?
We killed Kaddafi at France’s behest.
IIRC, Italy was in on it too. Yes, both had previous colonial interests in the area.
and it’s Muammar Gaddaffy, the late daffy prick.
Israel's use of a nuclear weapon first is absolutely unacceptable to 90% of the globe - for any reason - and is a nonnegotiably unacceptable action for the vast majority of the world's nations. There is absolutely no offensive circumstance that could justify it, and let's be real we all know that.
That is 100% correct--except that the number is more like 99%.
Israel certainly has that capability--but has never threatened to use it, and can reasonably be relied upon not to.
Do you really regard Iran as equivalent to Israel in that respect?
"Do you really regard Iran as equivalent to Israel in that respect?"
No. But as I've said to the point of exhaustion A) such a geopolitical situation is not unique to the Middle East and B) I don't think that concerns US when Israel's own program is illegal. Therefore, Iran and Israel would exist under the same rules that apply to all nuclear-weapon-owning nations: first use justifies defensive response. Iran illegally obtains its own nuke and uses it? It will cease to exist.
Sauce for the goose. That's fair.
RSM - Please consider the possibility that Trump did what he did not because he is kowtowing to Israel, but because he believes that it averted something far worse. Maybe he's right and maybe he's wrong, (I think he's right, though time may tell differently) but it is not necessary to assume that he is Israel's lapdog. In fact, to me, that seems unlikely.
"Iran and Israel would exist under the same rules that apply to all nuclear-weapon-owning nations: first use justifies defensive response. Iran illegally obtains its own nuke and uses it? It will cease to exist."
Perhaps it's better to not allow it to get to that point.
RideSpaceMountain said...
"Do you really regard Iran as equivalent to Israel in that respect?"
No. But as I've said to the point of exhaustion A) such a geopolitical situation is not unique to the Middle East and B) I don't think that concerns US when Israel's own program is illegal. Therefore, Iran and Israel would exist under the same rules that apply to all nuclear-weapon-owning nations: first use justifies defensive response. Iran illegally obtains its own nuke and uses it? It will cease to exist.
Stop focusing so much on Israel’s interests and start looking at our interests. The US benefits at least as much from a defenestrated Iran as Israel does.
Iran with nuclear weapons allows China to play out their mercantilist ambitions.
Iran with nuclear weapons allows Russia to keep the price of oil at levels that support their military adventurism.
You are able to separate your feelings and emotions from this problem. Until you do this the world will just make you angry.
"Perhaps it's better to not allow it to get to that point."
My point is that it's going to get to that point anyway. Israel's enemies will pursue nukes illegally (like they did) forever. It also appears every time it approaches that point we'll be there to bail Israel out...hopefully not forever, but we'll see.
"...but it is not necessary to assume that he is Israel's lapdog."
Nothing to do with Trump necessarily. This country is Israel's lapdog. This country absolutely acts like Israel's bouncer, and we proved it yet again over the weekend (for the umpteenth time). We can always be assured of her getting into trouble, and she can always count on US being there to kiss her booboos whenever she wants US to.
They need to rephrase that line to "God blesses those who jump as high as Israel says to jump". It's much more descriptive.
"Stop focusing so much on Israel’s interests and start looking at our interests."
Never stopped. It was, in fact, my doing so that made me stop giving so many fucks about what Israel continually screws up for US in that regard...
Most of our military bases in the Middle East are there because of Iran. A measurable percentage of our defense budget is spent because of Iran.
The alternative to this is allowing China to control shipping routes through the Middle East or to eliminate the threat from Iran.
Anyone who says we did this for Israel just doesn’t know what they are talking about and wants to reduce the discussion to stupid name calling and silliness.
Israel's enemies will pursue nukes illegally (like they did) forever... We can always be assured of [Israel] getting into trouble...
So essentially, Israel's enemies will always pursue nukes, and that is Israel's fault... because it exists?
Iran and Israel would exist under the same rules that apply to all nuclear-weapon-owning nations: first use justifies defensive response.
So, to answer Kissinger's question posed in the comments to previous threads, if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, you would still require Israel to actually be nuked before taking action?
"Israel's enemies will pursue nukes illegally (like they did) forever... "
What we need is for Israel's enemies to stop being enemies. It's the best long term solution. Trump has actually made progress on this front. We need more of it.
Israel probably would benefit from replacing Netanyahu.
Countries seek nuclear weapons when hostile states have nuclear weapons or when hostile states intervene in their affairs. It's not Israel's "fault" but sure, Iran wanted the bomb because Israel has the bomb. Is either country planning to actually use it in a first strike -- or would it just be for deterrence?
It is very difficult for me to understand how some of the intelligent people here can not see that Iran with nukes would have been an existential threat to the US and Europe not just Israel. I have been a bit surprised that some of the people here who have made intelligent comments previously have absolutely no understanding of the world conquest goals of Iran's current brand of Islam. Then for someone to say we should wait for Iran to drop a nuke on Israel and then let them all incinerate each other while we live under a radiation cloud is beyond understanding. We should have had the balls to do something about Iran's nuclear ambitions decades ago. I firmly believe that the joint actions by Israel and the US last week saved millions of lives. I also believe that we should be extremely grateful to the Israelis for putting their lives on the line to reduce Iran's defenses so our guys could accomplish their mission unharmed. Will there be regime change in Iran? Who knows? It would be nice to have Iran join the world peacefully, but they now know their outlaw behavior will not be tolerated. As I said yesterday there are a lot of grateful people in the ME who are happy that the threat from Iran has been reduced.
Lazarus said...
Israel probably would benefit from replacing Netanyahu.
Countries seek nuclear weapons when hostile states have nuclear weapons or when hostile states intervene in their affairs. It's not Israel's "fault" but sure, Iran wanted the bomb because Israel has the bomb. Is either country planning to actually use it in a first strike -- or would it just be for deterrence?
Why are people pretending that Iran was not our enemy too?
This is what an actual America First foreign policy looks like.
Millions of voters would have disagreed last year.
We still don't reliably know how close Iran was to getting the bomb, or whether Iran was still working on the bomb, or whether Iran already has the bomb. The idea that Iran can't wait to give nuclear weapons to Hamas or Hezbollah sounds too much like what we were hearing about Iraq in 2003.
If this is over, then we're lucky and good for us and for Trump, but if it's just another chapter in the forever war then things are more problematic.
"...have absolutely no understanding of the world conquest goals of Iran's current brand of Islam."
Been hearing this since I was a kid....♫Everybody wants to the rule the world♫. Lots more current theological brands than just those nuts in Tehran, want that conquest, MFG.
And "we should have had the balls to do something about Israel's nuclear ambitions decades ago", in fact some very well-known people tried, before some of them untimely died.
Said it bunches of times before...my entire position is what used to be the foreign policy position of the USA until very recently. Israel is to be congratulated on her Mother Of All Branding campaigns, her influence has convinced tons-o-maga that she can do no wrong.
Democrat party and media disappointed the most. Except Fetterman.
Countries seek nuclear weapons when hostile states have nuclear weapons or when hostile states intervene in their affairs. It's not Israel's "fault" but sure, Iran wanted the bomb because Israel has the bomb.
Modern-day Iran cannot know whether Israel is inherently "hostile" towards Iran, because modern-day Iran has been openly and aggressively hostile towards Israel from the day the Ayatollah took over in 1979. If anything, there is evidence that Israel and Iran are not "natural" enemies - Iran was the second Muslim state to recognize Israel as a sovereign state (after Turkey), and relations were good when Iran was ruled by the Shah.
Saying "the guy that I have threatened with death every day since we met" is the bad guy for buying (and thus far not using) a gun is not a compelling argument,
Lazarus said...
This is what an actual America First foreign policy looks like.
Millions of voters would have disagreed last year.
That’s neat. I also know that Trump understands this. That is why this was over so fast.
I am just tired of people saying stupid shit. It is just getting boring at this point. It is just flat out stupid to say we did this for Israel.
I am sure that Israel begged for permission to do this and that they were asking months ago.
And I know that over the last 6 months the United States, Israel, and Sunni regimes have been implementing a plan to eliminate the Shia threat in the region. Every Iranian proxy in the region has been systematically targeted and defenestrated.
This was a proxy war between the US and China/Russia/Europe for decades.
Now Trump has very likely ended it.
At MN Farm Guy, of the entire thread the only correct disposition of events. Now, if only MN could get "regime change"!
Ya know, all these ck-suckers using the F word is killing the effect. It used to be be reserved for special occasions
Lazarus said...
“Israel probably would benefit from replacing Netanyahu.”
Ya think?
tommyesq said..."Modern-day Iran cannot know whether Israel is inherently "hostile" towards Iran, because modern-day Iran has been openly and aggressively hostile towards Israel from the day the Ayatollah took over in 1979."…
…"Saying "the guy that I have threatened with death every day since we met" is the bad guy for buying (and thus far not using) a gun is not a compelling argument,
+1
Israel had nuclear weapons long before the Shah's collapse. Israel stole "a gun" long before "Death to Israel/Death to America" became a unified chant. "The gun" Israel stole it also stole from its main global benefactor and guarantor of its security, to include its nuclear umbrella.
Israel didn't need a nuke. It wanted one, and engaged in skullduggery to obtain it. More holes than a colander in that argument.
Israel's existence was under threat long before the fall of the Shah, as a few previous wars have shown.
Iran will stop funding/arming Hamas and Hezbollah if Netanyahu goes?
wow - The people who vote in Israel better wise up! It's so simple!
Israel is armed to the teeth -> fine with me.
yes like barak who wanted to give away the store, sharon who gave us gaza, even netanyahu, has helped close the net, of course we know what hamas did to Gaza,
because they are under the delusion that feeding the tiger first, will spare you a limb, after 30 years of the oslo delusion,
they are smoking something very strong,
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1937624347939573857
RSM, Iran may not have been a threat when Israel got a nuke, but virtually every other Arab/Muslim country was, and Iran joined that group when they still posed aan existential threat. Not a binary situation. Also, if Israel did "steal" a nuke way back when, does that require us (and the world) to let them be annihilated?
"Israel's existence was under threat long before the fall of the Shah, as a few previous wars have shown."
All conventional wars and all won by Israel with more or less American help or blessing. Rsm keeps hounding that nuclear brinksmanship in the middle east began with Israel, and I agree with him for once.
well the 48 war with czech guns, and a handful of planes, scrounged from all over, by 56, they had some french aircraft
There comes a point that RideSpaceMountain has to be called out and dismissed because his hatred is the basis of his irrational and factually inaccurate "arguments." He claims that the US is Israel's lapdog and the US has "always" been completely supportive and subordinate to Israel. We all know that's not true. Biden, for example, did everything he could to curtail Israel's campaign in Gaza.
And RSM even shares the fringe theory accusing Israel of the assassination of JFK which is absurd. (Chatgpt): Kennedy -- “first president to approve major arms sale to Israel. Kennedy was the first U.S. president to approve the sale of advanced U.S. weapons to Israel—Hawk anti-aircraft missiles in 1962. This marked a shift in U.S. policy, as prior presidents (like Eisenhower) had been reluctant to arm Israel directly, preferring to limit regional arms races. JFK publicly supported Israel’s right to exist within secure borders and emphasized peaceful coexistence with Arab neighbors.” The conflict with JFK was over open inspections of Israel's nuclear program, which they wanted to keep under raps. They did not then and do not now actively threaten their enemies with annihilation, whereas Iran holds demonstrations weekly to threaten Israel and the US with death. Meanwhile Israel even with nuclear arms has not deterred Iran one iota from pursuing its regional agenda, building its network of proxy armed forces whose primary agenda is to attack Israel. So much for the claim that Iran needs nuclear weapons because Israel is an existential threat.
Iran wants bombs for the same reason North Korea has them, to protect their regimes.
Notably, Trump announced that he has no intention of pursuing regime change in Iran and took Ayatollah Ali Khamenei off the table as a target.
Trump moved the goal posts for Israel and they will back down and live with the continued threat. This ceasefire serves Trump’s political agenda to avoid conflicts and be a peace maker, not Israel’s desire to finally remove the mullahs and have peace in the region. See how ridiculous it is to claim that the US is Israel’s lapdog?
didn't know he had gone down that rabbit hole, angleton was notably a very strong advocate in Israel's corner,
Not to mention that Obama gave $$$ billions to Iran and Biden removed sanctions immediately after his inauguration, certainly not acts beneficial to Israel. Iran directly funded Hamas in Gaza, and as Trump has said, 10/7 would never had happened if the US had kept the sanctions on Iran. So clearly Israel does not always have a friend in the White House or control over US policies.
Rosalyn C. - well done.
Most of the time it's wise to sit back for a couple of days and figure out what shakes out. Iran's nuclear facilities just got a whole can of whoop ass unloaded on them, and if not obliterated, they were probably severely damaged. And if that didn't get the job done the IDF airforce will pave the way for a return visit. As for the odd missile here or there some commanders are the sort that never got the memo.
All you folks should take two aspirin--and wake up not tomorrow morning, but a week from now--and see what has happened before making a call on it all.
@Rosalyn C, Israel likes to play both sides of the political aisle, and Israel's influence - which most definitely exists - usually takes on an advisory role within high-functioning bureaucratic think-tank institutions that advise decision-makers, not make decisions themselves. And there have been elected officials that go a different way, doesn't mean the influence isn't there, nor that it's even registered as an "FA". But the word is out in the street on AIPAC. People on both sides of the political divide, left and right, can see how america-second influencers switch-hit to keep that agenda front and center. Israel's influence on American political life and their spycraft within our defense and government institutions needs to be discussed. I will always stand behind that, and you can quote me.
"The conflict with JFK was over open inspections of Israel's nuclear program, which they wanted to keep under raps."
Why...yes. Yes it was. That was a very long paragraph containing much I agree with, and very little else that has any bearing on Israel's proliferation-violating history with nuclear arms, the very issue that is currently under discussion. This is all about a double-standard between Israel and the rest of the world. You mentioned Obama dropping "$$$" on Iran without accounting so many previous administrations were actively trying to boneheadedly prevent what Israel got away with, maybe? Most Americans under 55 couldn't give two larks about who threatened whom in 1979, it's what has and is being done that justifiably worries them, and who is actually doing what is in the best interest of their own country, not someone else's.
The only atomic research that was not conducted for regime security was that undertaken during the Manhattan Project during WWII, and all developmental research conducted after the war was over was partly for regime protection. That is a factor in all human warfare, with whatever weapons you specify. We have them partly for the same reason North Korea does. Everyone does.
Goal posts move. Trump's position could change after hearing advice from certain quarters. Everyone is watching and waiting. Many like myself are cognizant of Israel's part played in all of this and that Israel, like every country on earth, has an agenda. Are there not many Israelis that want to make Israel great again? That are Israel First just like I'm America First? I've got no problem with any of that, just let's be honest about it. Trump's only agenda is in his head and nobody knows who has the keys.
Perhaps we agree on hoping this calms down. I do.
Israel had no need to “steal” or “buy” a bomb. Anyone who’s seen “Oppenheimer” knows that most of the scientists who designed and built the first bomb were Jewish.
I’d never say that I think the world would be a better place if Israel converted all the Islamist countries into a smooth reflective surface visible from the moon. I’m just pointing out that the thought is there to be thunk.
RideSpaceMountain @ 10:48
"since Israel got nukes (illegaly) . . . ."
Israel broke laws to get it's nukes? Which laws?
Did Israel violate the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Israel is not a signatory of the Treaty so it's not bound by its terms, right?
In other words, can you explain how Israel's possession of nuclear weapons would be "illegal?"
Just wondering . . . are there any countries in legal possession of such weapons? If so, what laws did they have to follow to be "legal?"
Smilin' Jack - indeed.
Perhaps we agree on hoping this calms down. I do.
Amen, and I haven't seen anything recently to suggest otherwise.
"Israel broke laws to get it's nukes? Which laws?"
Yeah, I don't know what that's about, either. Perhaps it's the claim that Israel stole fissile material from the US, but the time I spent today trying to check that out didn't yield anything substantive. Perhaps he'll enlighten us.
I do not understand the claim that Israel developed nuclear weapons "illegally." According to what law? They're not signatories to the NPT, if that's what's meant. Is this is reference to some kind of U.N. resolution from the General Assembly? If so, who the hell cares?
Also, I don't get the assertion that Israel somehow "stole" its nuclear weapons. Do you mean the design? Because pretty much everyone who has developed nukes (except maybe Britain and France) got a big leg up on their designs from espionage, but it's actually not at all obvious that that was how Israel developed its weapons. Although there were plenty of Manhattan Project physicists and engineers who supported Israel, the Jewish diaspora had more than enough Physics talent to create weapons on their own once it was shown to be possible. (And if they did "steal" a design from anyone, it was just as likely it was Russia, since the USSR was very friendly to Israel up until the '70s and there was a strong Russian-Jewish Physics community. I guess it would be ironic if Israel spied on the USSR to get the designs that the USSR spied on the US to get...but it's a real stretch to call that "illegal" or "stealing").
Anyway, the real challenge with nuclear weapons isn't so much the design physics (though there are still some very tightly held secrets about materials and precise shapes of components), but the creation of the industrial facilities that are required to enrich uranium or create plutonium: they require both enormous scale and great precision.
Which is why everyone thinks Israel developed its nuclear weapons in concert with South Africa in the 1960s: S.A. had the uranium ore and, more importantly, the physical space necessary. The test was almost certainly done in Antarctica.
Finally, Israel's deterrent is really their submarines, which they didn't steal or acquire "illegally," but openly bought from Germany.
I'm starting to think that there's some weird situation going on in which there's one model of acceptable behavior for Israel and an entirely different one for other people, almost like there are, I don't know, two different standards. Crazy, huh?
"I do not understand the claim that Israel developed nuclear weapons "illegally." According to what law? They're not signatories to the NPT, if that's what's meant."
Israeli spies stole nuclear components from the USA and also the technology needed to build a bomb. Along with the missle technology for their Nuclear subs. According to wikipedia
"The CIA believed that Israel's first bombs may (were) have been made with highly enriched uranium stolen in the mid-1960s from the U.S. Navy nuclear fuel plant operated by the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation."
But I agree that calling it a violation of international law is a stretch. As noted Israel never signed the NPT. The UK and France helped Israel build nuclear weapons. And the USA under LBJ knew Israel was building them, and did nothing.
Let's do a thought experiment. Let us suppose that Israel is out of the equation and Iran is allowed to build its bomb. What would happen?
For one thing Iran would control the price on ME oil. They would work hard to prevent any other ME nation from building their own nuclear weapon. The ripples spread out from there.
There is a suggestion that the new leaders of Iran's military have bought an autopen. Disappeared "for his own safety", direct communication from the Ayatollah has stopped.
""The CIA believed that Israel's first bombs may (were) have been made with highly enriched uranium stolen in the mid-1960s from the U.S. Navy nuclear fuel plant operated by the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation."
"The CIA believed", … How's relying on the CIA turned out? All I found in my research was an old NYT article that said what you just quoted (how's relying on the NYT worked out?) Looks like another conspiracy theory to me, though I didn't research it hard. I also don't think it matters, especially 50 years on.
RSM: So many posts, and not one mention of sharia supremacism.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.