Israel ‘accelerating’ Iran strike plans

I don't know about that. While the Israeli-ME situation seems a mess to me that I can't work out - the one thing I agree with is that no religious state should possess nuclear missiles, as, normally:
- people understand that others aren't truly evil, just different, even if they don't like the differences (ie. it's hard for people to truly believe the use of a nuclear bomb is justified); and
- people have a sense of self-preservation (which is what prevented a US / Russia conflicted - the likelihood of mutual distruction)

Neither of these reasons would necessarily hold with a religious fanatic. That is not to say that religious fanatics are in charge in Iran (I wouldn't truly know about that), but that at some time in the future of any religious state, it is likely that extremists will come to power. Hence why I say any religious state.

And I don't mean a State with a State religion, but places where the religion is the State. Close behind those in concern, for me, are places with higher percentages of radicalised religious adherents, like Pakistan. In my view, North Korea isn't as big of a worry. Of course all of this is said with the admission that I am not an expert on this topic, and may be wrong about some things.

Iran shouldn’t have nukes because it’s a religious state, but Israel can have them is what it sounds like you’re saying.

You do know Judaism is a religion and that the vast majority of Israeli citizens are of the Jewish faith?

You’re tying yourself up in knots over something you’ve admitted you know very little about.

There is a certain amount of intersection between Israel's interests and the US' interests in regard to Iran, namely their containment. The difference is in their stark differences of approach, what with the present US administration seeking to offer a carrot in the form of revived agreements to regulate Iran's nuclear program contrasted with the Israeli regime's stick approach out of existential paranoia and their perennial claim that Iran is two months away from acquiring nuclear weapons. A military attack would throw a wrench in the works of the US administration, as it were.

Given how limited Israel's military capabilities are, being based on defense, I don't know how they'd carry out an attack on Iran which is separated by at least two countries that would not be friendly to military encroachment, let alone Israeli military encroachment. So far Israel has resorted to sabotage, e.g. the attack on Iran's Natanz nuclear facility in April, to thwart any Iranian nuclear weapon ambitions.

Biden could have lifted Trump's restrictions and Iran would have negotiated to renew the deal. Israel wants to keep Iran weak and will risk a great war to make it stick. If Biden doesn't take Israel by the scruff of the neck anything can happen.

Biden rescinded the sanctions that Trump reimposed on Iran back in February.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/biden-withdraws-trumps-restoration-sanctions-iran-75982807

Militarily, Israel doesn't have a ground capability beyond a few hundred miles from their borders. Aerially, it's a few hundred miles more. Iran is a couple of thousands of miles away from Israel.

Israel is constantly bombing Iranian targets and somebody is sabotaging from within Iran. Iran has little reason to trust our two nations. Plus Israel tries framing Iran with fake attacks on ships.

In regard to Iran and the US, the mistrust goes both ways. Iranian backed militias attacked a US base in Iraq in February prompting a tit-for-tat response by the US.

Israel is staunchly opposed to the US' efforts to renegotiate with Iran.

Iran's actions are predicated on hostile acts against it. Which is why they are not trustful of negotiating with Biden.

What hostile acts has Biden perpetrated against Iran?

Without googling - the bombing of Iran backed troops in Iraq. I know, you think we have the right to be there bombing instead of pulling out.

Iran is ruled by baddies even they call themselves clerics. It also sends military aid to Hamas and Hezbollah.

Yeah, that was the tit-for-tat response to Iranian backed militias attacking US forces in Iraq that I referred to.

Actually, you don't know. You're confusing what I think with what I'm describing. I'm for withdrawing troops from West and Central Asia, just like you, and Biden, and Trump.

Empire is a losing game, in the end.

I meant what I said when I said any religious state. Is Israel a religious state? If it is, then no it shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

Yep. There is usually significant degrees of difference between: The main religion of a country; the State Religion of a country; and a Religious State.
Hardly. I admit (and did admit) where my knowledge is lacking. But anything I say that can be called a principle, I apply evenly - hence why if Israel is a religious state, it shouldn't have nukes. The reasoning stays the same regardless of the nation. I don't know where in your mind that equates to knots.

To be clear though - I am against the concept of religious states, of any sort. I don't think religious states are as healthy as secular states. That said, this is a point of view that people in religious states are welcome to disagree with, as there are valid arguments for the other direction.

Israel is a religious state, so by your definition they shouldn’t have nukes.

So what are we going to do about it?

Iran had a democratically elected government until an Ml5/CIA sanctioned coup installed the Shah.

It’s all about oil, dictatorships are far more willing to sell out ther countries than dictatorships.

Which is why America stamps down hard on democracies in the Middle East and supports hardline dictators like MBS in Saudi Arabia.

In the end the only consistent, legitimate opponent of American imperialism is Islamic fundamentalism.

You reap what you sow.

Not definition - view. Definition is quite a bit more black and white.

And my view hasn't changed. As I said previously, no religious state should have them. If a power acted to remove them, I would have no objection. I would hope though, that it was done in a way that had the least impact (on any religious state). That isn't saying 'no impact' (in case 'least impact' causes confusion), just least impact possible.

So your posts amount to little more than handwringing.

I read 'All the Shahs men'. Some of it is also in 'CIA: Legacy of Ashes'



You appear to want to take offense to something.

I haven't seen anyone make a difference on the scale suggested through the words written on this forum. Every post on this entire forum is just expressed views - which may or may not convince one other person of something.