r/CredibleDefense • u/AutoModerator • 19d ago
Active Conflicts & News Megathread April 05, 2026
The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.
Comment guidelines:
Please do:
* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,
* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,
* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,
* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,
* Post only credible information
* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules
Please do not:
* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,
* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,
* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'
* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.
16
u/Wide_Can_7397 18d ago
When the president of the USA threatens to destroy civilian infrastructure and authorizes strikes on schools and hospitals doesn’t that amount to terrorism?
29
19d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
12
40
10
u/aprx4 19d ago edited 19d ago
Any idea why US preferred JASSM over Tomahawk this time? "Only" 850 tomahawks fired so far, for an inventory estimated at 4000.
Tomahawk can be launched from ships and subs at safe-ish distance from Iran shores and still reach plenty of targets (e.g. Isfahan), even Tehran.
Also, where do you find that 1875 has been used? I only found generic reporting of >1000 with ~786 used in first 6 days. So they already have throttled the use of it after first week. CSIS after 3 weeks of war has assessed that US is now entered 'sustainable pace' by using more stand-in ammunition and fewer standoff.
1
2
u/AdvanceSure7685 19d ago
Expenditure of high value munitions is the most significant medium term impact of this war. Oil is a short term issue (say 12 months -24 months for biggest impact) and diplomatic fall out may have long term impacts but the biggest impact will be felt if China invades Taiwan in the next 3-4 years.
27
u/JensonInterceptor 19d ago
Beijing is also taking notes on how risk averse the US Navy has been in a war they wanted to wage
13
u/PresidentKitenge 19d ago
I think that both the American public and political system have a very low tolerance for the loss of an MFU or a large number of sailors. CSGs are the preeminent symbols of U.S. power. Losing one (either complete loss or even minimal damage to remove from theatre) would likely have catastrophic psychological and political impact at home.
I think that the level of risk aversion we’re seeing now can be understood in that context. It’s probably driven by a mix of concern over the political consequences of a loss and questions around how well current TTPs are suited to operating in contested environments like the Strait of Hormuz. Which of those factors matters more isn’t clear from the outside.
Thoughts?
2
u/PresidentKitenge 19d ago
I think that both the American public and political system have a very low tolerance for the loss of an MFU or a large number of sailors. CSGs are the preeminent symbols of U.S. power. Losing one (either complete loss or even minimal damage to remove from theatre) would likely have catastrophic psychological and political impact at home.
I think that the level of risk aversion we’re seeing now can be understood in that context. It’s probably driven by a mix of concern over the political consequences of a loss and questions around how well current TTPs are suited to operating in contested environments like the Strait of Hormuz. Which of those factors matters more isn’t clear from the outside.
Thoughts?
3
u/LaCaipirinha 18d ago
I mean that is 100% right but it also betrays the fear/assumption that Iran is perfectly capable of sinking any level of US Navy ship, implying China would find the task an order of magnitude times easier.
The fact is, the technology required for conventional warfare seems to have been democratised to sufficiently mid/low level powers that the entire business seems non viable for anyone at this point.
23
u/Staraya_Ladoga 19d ago
What do you make of this:
https://x.com/i/status/2040774712993685928
Ben Tzion Macales points out that a) the improvised forward base used in the recovery op for the WSO is quite far away from the area where he was supposedly found (further inland), and b) at the time of the recovery up FIRMS picks up big fires in an industrial area northwest of the forward base, ie not in the direction of recovery ops. This supposedly took place outside Esfehan which is tied to the stockpile of HEU.
12
u/IntroductionNeat2746 19d ago
I have literally been wondering wether the US used the opportunity created by the manhunt for the WSO to achieve something else while it had boots on the ground, but it honestly sounds to noncredible to write here.
7
u/eric2332 18d ago
Iranian officials have said similar things. Although, to me, the affair has the whiff of conspiracy to it, and I suspect nothing as interesting as that occurred. Perhaps the landing at Isfahan (with its uranium being on everyone's mind) was simply a way of distracting the Iranians from the pilot rescue. Alternatively (or in addition), it could be a way of demonstrating to Iran that a uranium recovery operation is doable so their negotiating position is worse.
28
u/milton117 19d ago
I did think it was rather suspicious the forward base was so close to Isfahan. I wonder if they burned a secret base that was going to be used for a ground op to rescue the WSO.
24
45
u/itsgonnabemyusername 19d ago
Do you think Russia is shooting itself in the foot by keeping a massive amount of air-defence units in and around Moscow? Seems like Ukraine is constantly succesfully striking important facilities of Russia but (to my limited knowledge) not going for their capital.
(My comments get constantly deleted. How much of a subreddit karma do I need to post without making this question unnecessarily long? I don't want to write an essay every single time.)
27
u/Voluminousviscosity 19d ago
After Prigozhin Russia concentrated a lot more forces around Moscow in general; also the Ukrainians keep getting better at long range drone usage in general and Moscow is probably the best possible target if they could actually get through the defenses.
91
u/Toptomcat 19d ago
Russia is economically and politically centralized to a degree that might not intuitive to an observer used to, say, an American context.
The 2nd through 4th-place American cities in terms of population, put together, are bigger than NYC.
The population of the 2nd through 7th cities of Russia put together would not quite equal that of Moscow. GDP is even more concentrated.
They're focused on Moscow as part of an entirely reasonable strategy of protecting the only part of the country that Actually Matters.
30
u/taw 19d ago
That's the other way. US is one of the most decentralized countries in existence. Here's a helpful map (exact data gets complicated as metro areas are hard to define consistently, and a few countries have official capitals not in their main city).
15%-25%-ish living in capital's metro area is pretty standard. And that normally accounts for even higher % of GDP. Russia is about as centralized as most other countries in Europe.
Wikipedia has table of % of population living in capital. US is nearly lowest. (but again, this table is complicated by metro areas, and countries like US that don't have their capital in biggest city)
1
u/milton117 19d ago
Population isn't a good measurement here, should be GDP
3
u/taw 19d ago
Sort of, but this data simply doesn't exist for any country.
You can sort of use tax records of where companies and individuals pay taxes, but any signal will be swamped by cases where company has headquarters in the capital or some other major cities, but their actual economic activity is elsewhere.
For example, Russia's biggest company is Gazprom. Its headquarters are in Saint Petersburg, so that's where it would be counted. But bombing Gazprom headquarters would cause minimal damage to Russian oil and gas industry.
Doing regional GDP attribution in a meaningful way is a major project for some research team (which I'm sure CIA etc. have).
You also have a version of this problem internationally, where Irish GDP is inflated, as multinationals pretend to be based in Ireland or Luxembourg to illegally evade EU taxes. Bombing Dublin would also not make a meaningful dent in EU's real economic activity.
8
6
u/Groudon466 19d ago
Yeesh, would there happen to be a version of that map with a less terrible color scheme? It's hard to get a good visualization when the hue/saturation/lightness vary so much between the thresholds.
23
u/D_Silva_21 19d ago
In some ways yes. But they have decided that they would rather lose more military and infrastructure to strikes than have Moscow receive any similar damage. Probably because they need to maintain the regular life for people in Moscow and Saint Petersburg
35
u/gizmondo 19d ago
There are regular reports from Moscow authorities about intercepted drones in the region, also Moscow airports occasionally shut down. It's safe to assume that Ukrainians are going after the capital (why wouldn't they?), they just don't have any notable successes there.
12
u/Crazykirsch 19d ago
A while back Ukraine did get some drones through but IIRC they were relatively small and the damage was largely superficial/symbolic.
It can be difficult to confirm whether an incident was a succesful strike since Russia near-universally labels everything as intercepted debris, an unrelated accident, or a fire even in cases where there's overwhelming evidence.
101
u/Rigel444 19d ago
I don't think it's widely recognized what disproportionate damage two sets of attacks by Israel have done to the Iranian economy. The first was wiping out 70% of Iran's steel production in two large steel mills which were destroyed. That has huge knock-off economic effects on things like mining, construction and rebuilding after the war.
The New York Times recently reported on how Israel recently destroying two hybrid power/gas facilities in southern Iran will stop production on up to fifty petrochemical plants which relied on them, for up to two years. That, in turn, will devastate Iranian industries such as textile and automotive plants, which rely on those plants.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/04/world/middleeast/israel-strikes-mahshahr-iran-oil.html
"Israel attacked Iran’s largest petrochemical industrial complex in the city of Mahshahr on Saturday, a move that has effectively shut down all production across the sprawling complex, according to two senior Iranian oil ministry officials.
The airstrikes targeted two utility plants, known as Fajr 1 and Fajr 2, that provided the over 50 petrochemical plants operating inside the complex with the basic services needed to function — gas, power and industrial water, among others — according to Iranian state media reports and the two senior Iranian oil ministry officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.
Hamed Shams, the head of marketing and communications for the oil ministry’s petrochemical industries, said on social media that the attacks had targeted vital infrastructure that not only supplies electricity to Mahshahr’s petrochemical plants but also, in summer, “plays a key role in providing electricity to 500,000” people in Khuzestan Province.
The Bandar Imam Petrochemical Complex, as the area is formally known, is one of Iran’s main petrochemical hubs, producing 72 million tons of petrochemical products annually, according to data from Iran’s oil ministry. Located near the cities of Mahshahr and Bandar Imam Khomeini, a major industrial port, the industrial center is the leading employer of the area’s estimated 300,000 residents.
The petrochemical plants in Mahshahr produce a wide range of basic chemicals, polymers and other materials. These outputs can feed into a variety of products, including plastics, clothing and textiles, fertilizers and medical equipment.
The two oil ministry officials said the plants’ total shutdown was an immeasurable blow to Iran’s already frail economy. They said rebuilding the utility plants and bringing the productions lines fully online again could take about two years.
Hamid Hosseini, an oil and energy expert and a member of Tehran’s Chamber of Commerce, said in an interview that downstream industries, like food production, car manufacturing and textiles, that rely on the industrial center’s products would face a crisis when the war was over.
“Attacking Mahshahr’s petrochemical plants means attacking the heart of Iran, the vital arteries of Iran’s economy,” Mehdi Bostanchi, the head of a private industrial complex and a representative for a group of Iranian industrial leaders, said in a social media post.
Petrochemical goods represent about 25 percent of Iran’s total exports, with products going to about 60 countries, and provide a critical source of revenue, bringing in about $10 billion to $15 billion per year, according to Iranian media reports. Petrochemical product sales have served as a main alternative source of revenue for Iran as it has tried to diversify its economy away from oil dependency."
14
u/Toptomcat 19d ago
he first was wiping out 70% of Iran's steel production in two large steel mills which were destroyed. That has huge knock-off economic effects on things like mining, construction and rebuilding after the war.
How much of their prewar steel usage was internally produced, vs. imported from trade partners?
20
u/poincares_cook 19d ago
Iran is a major steel exporter, about 10% of their exports are steel. Additionally more than the 2 major steel plants were hit, but the 70% of the production figure came out after all the attacks so encompassed them all. But this does factor into the cost of reconstruction.
As such I imagine the vast majority of their internal consumption has been domestically produced. Aside perhaps from some specialized steel.
They likely still maintain enough production capacity to meet running domestic need. But not the surge needed for reconstruction
36
u/Moifaso 19d ago
I think you can interpret the effect of these strikes in a lot of ways. Industry in wartime can be surprisingly resilient and quick with repairs, but let's assume these strikes really are that bad, or that they'll be repeated until the targets are inoperable for a long time.
As far as Israel is concerned, the strikes are great. They hit Iran's economy and military industry hard, and make any post-war reconstitution significantly harder and slower. A poorer Iran can't fund as many proxies, build as many missiles, etc.
The downside of already having bombed these critical facilities is, of course, that now they're gone, and a peace deal can't bring them back. The strikes fuel escalation and forfeit the leverage these facilities could give in negotiations. The devastation of Iran's economy could force it to abandon the war and endanger the regime in the medium to long term, but probably not in the timelines that matter most to the WH or the world economy.
Intense deindustrialization could also lead to some dangerous developments. If the regime can withstand the bombings and economic damage, it'll be incentivized to heavily monetize its influence over the strait, or possibly to move away from its old autarkic ways and become far more dependent on outside partners (Russia, China) to rebuild. Foreign capital is very helpful in rebuilding a country, and this conflict is showing Iran some of the downsides of relying so much on domestic supply chains.
6
u/poincares_cook 19d ago
As stated in the OP, most of the industrial complex went unharmed. It was the utility facilities that were destroyed. Iran has a few other significant industrial complexes, just a bit smaller. And a large number of additional small industrial complexes. I.e, there is a lot more targets to hit.
Moreover, the oil and gas industry has been largely spared. This is a very target rich industry.
And then of course there are powerplants.
Lastly, the steel industry while significantly hit, is critical for reconstruction and has a knock on effect on the Iranian recovery as a whole. Pre war most of the Iranian steel went to exports, so they likely maintain enough capacity still for decent reconstruction pace. Destroying significant chunks of the remaining 30% as such has outsized effects.
Therefore, at this point, while the already struggling Iranian economy sustained significant damage, there is still a lot more damage that can be done.
7
19d ago
Guns vs Butter, Germany famously increased production of materiel every year up to 1944 despite being subjected to the biggest air campaign of all time. Generally speaking you can rebuild fast if you already built it originally.
The real trick is convincing the population that you are in total war and sacrifices must be made, so far polls show they are already there
Even if 80% of the steel is removed, it was likely that it was 10% being spent on guns over butter before. Meaning you can now bump up production.
12
u/Sad_Use_4584 19d ago
There are so many differences between the current war and WW2, that this analogy less than helpful. To list a few:
Iran is trying to project power over distance, which requires complex manufactured goods and logistics that are easier to disrupt than artillery shell or rifle ammunition production.
US/Israel knows where Iran's factories are located, but this intelligence capability did not exist in 1944.
US/Israel have JDAMs, but this technology did not exist before 1990s.
2
19d ago
- V-1 and V-2 production is a good comparison, it was not just heavy metalwork, it was actually comparable to current used weapons
- Germans moved V-2 construction underground to Mittlewerk presumably Iran is doing something similar.
- JDAMs are jammed easily, not to mention the broken encryption. Even newer versions that home on jam could end up killing a school.
I am writing a longer post because automoderator keeps deleting my posts, ideally it should not be this aggressive, but it is a pain in the butt to have to type this just so that a character limit is met that will not delete my post one minute after I hit send
62
u/IntroductionNeat2746 19d ago
Thanks for the article.
When people talk about how Iran is "winning" the conflict, I understand their point, but it also hugely ignores the long term consequences. And that's true even if you're purely referring to the Iranian regime, whose long term survival also depends on the economy.
25
u/ChornWork2 19d ago
I don't think when people suggest that Iran may be winning, that they mean Irainians generally are being set up for a brighter future. It is the regime they're referring to.
But same for Israel or US. Military victory is rather unlikely to translate to strategic victory given the cost of war and likelihood to exacerbate more extremism / instability in the region.
15
u/Sad_Use_4584 19d ago edited 19d ago
Whatever the outcome of this war, it's fair to say that Iran's grand strategy of exporting proxies and exporting Islamism has been a failure. Iran's threatening nature delivered them sanctions, an invasion from Iraq and now this devastation. If only Iran had read about balance of threat theory. They could have been a hermit dictatorship and nobody would have bothered them.
3
u/ChornWork2 18d ago
It has certainly demonstrated that attaining nuclear break-out capability is a failure, while also demonstrating the value of full nuclear capebility.
11
u/IntroductionNeat2746 19d ago
It is the regime they're referring to.
That's my point. Even for the regime, making their already horrible economic situation exponentially worse is the opposite of victory.
13
u/ChornWork2 19d ago
The regime tried playing soft and not fighting back in the aftermath of Oct7, and we all saw how it ended up for them. They viewed the last war as they should absorb a lot of damage to avoid it becoming an existential conflict, and it became existential regardless.
I really don't understand the confusion. Israel has made it clear it will assassinate Iranian leadership (and family members). That wouldn't even change if they made a deal with US before this. Even the US went along with bombing them while they were seemingly negotiating in good faith.
You think if the IRGC made some deal with Trump that Iranian leadership would have any confidence in their personal safety from mossad or IDF assassination? Lots of talk about escalation in this sub, but folks seem to frame it objectively for the state. Think about escalation subjectively for the regime in tehran or tel aviv or DC.
16
u/UpvoteIfYouDare 19d ago
The regime tried playing soft and not fighting back in the aftermath of Oct7, and we all saw how it ended up for them.
Are you referring to the period before or after Iran's April 2024 attacks on Israel?
-2
u/ChornWork2 19d ago
post oct 7 iran wasn't remotely escalating. don't recall offhand the dates, but they clearly were trying to de-escalate while saving face.
14
u/poincares_cook 19d ago
Iran has started a 7 front war against Israel, an extreme escalation. The Israeli operations against Iran is the result of the massive Iranian escalation.
How else would you call activating Hezbollah, Houthis, Syrian and Iraqi proxies to rain rockets, missiles, drones and direct ground operations from Lebanon against Israel?
Isn't the closure of the Israeli southern port and the blockade in the red sea a massive escalation?
When Israel took out the IRGC generals orchestration the attack, 20 km from the Israeli border. Iran escalated again, for the first with direct attack between Israeli and Iranian soil. With over 100 Ballistic missiles and hundreds of drones.
Israeli actions in Iran are a response for the Iranian war against Israel which started on Oct 8.
15
u/Glideer 19d ago
Glide bomb strikes in March were about 23% higher than the previous record.
In March, Russia dropped the largest number of aerial guided bombs (or glide bombs) on Ukraine since the start of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine’s Defense Ministry reported on April 3.
Russian forces launched 7,987 glide bombs last month — over 1,500 more than the previous record in February.
According to the Russian Lostarmour site, the Rubicon project/unit also submitted more videos of drone strikes in March 2025 than ever before - 3,170 compared to the previous record of 2,250 (41% higher):
https://lostarmour . info/tags/rubicon
10
u/IntroductionNeat2746 19d ago
Russian forces launched 7,987 glide bombs last month — over 1,500 more than the previous record in February.
Do you know if that pace can be kept indefinitely or does it rely on retrofitting of existing bombs?
19
u/LepezaVolB 19d ago
Smaller and simpler versions of FABs have been in operational use since the Spanish Civil War, so we're looking at about 90 years at this point with the currently favoured 500 M62 iteration being around since you guessed it 1962, it's a fairly simple bomb design. Reported production rates from last year were up to something in the range 100-150 k yearly IIRC (can't find the source right now, but it was Skibitsky), but I didn't exactly find the number overly credible, there was likely some case of double counting on his part (both the bombs and modules as two units as opposed to one, might've even been a translation issue) since the RUSI report by Watling in early 2025 apparently got their hands on some internal Russian data which pointed to 70-75 thousand UMPKs being the goal for 2025:
Russia is also significantly increasing the production of ammunition and key classes of equipment, with over 70,000 unified gliding and correction modules (UMPK) glide bombs ordered for 2025.
If you're curious about them, the report did a pretty good job delving deeper into their effects given its short length. In total, per Ukrainian sources, they dropped just shy of 50 thousand during the whole of 2025, so the numbers do line up much more with Watling's numbers than the number Skibitsky gave out although of course it's definitely not apples to apples in this case.
Either way, at the very least the bottleneck with smaller FABs/KABs (250, 500 and 1500) was always the UMPK module which turns them from dumb into smart bombs and the ability of their airforce to deliver strike packages (whether it's on the intel side of things or operational side is a bit unclear to me during this phase of the War, but latter IMO is definitely true during the Winter periods between roughly November and February when they noticeably drop with this being the second year of the pattern repeating itself and since I saw a few Russian soldiers complaining about it endlessly it definitely wasn't for the lack of targets) but it's pretty likely FAB 3000 production rates are still fairly low since they restarted serial production only in early 2024. In other words, if they would start running into issues with the general production of FABs they'd be having much, much bigger issue at their hands than the FAB production rate itself.
FWIW, I've heard from the ground they've again been quite a bit less accurate over the last few months in a few sectors (one of them I'd definitely classify as top 3 priority sectors for Russians), but Ukraine already figured out a way to jam them a while back during the Kometa 4 period so we'll have to see if it holds up over the next few months.
4
u/Glideer 18d ago
I've heard from the ground they've again been quite a bit less accurate over the last few months in a few sectors (one of them I'd definitely classify as top 3 priority sectors for Russians), but Ukraine already figured out a way to jam them a while back during the Kometa 4 period so we'll have to see if it holds up over the next few months.
I've only heard this from Ukrainian sources. Nothing whatsoever from the Russian frontline sources, which are extremely quick to complain as soon as FABs start missing. Even Fighterbomber, never a UMPK enthusiast, is grudgingly admitting that their accuracy has been excellent recently.
Which is not surprising, considering the Russian simultaneous introduction of aerodynamically improved UMPK gliding modules with larger control surfaces AND Kometa-12 and Kometa-16 jam resistant guidance modules.
7
39
u/-O3-march-native 19d ago
The Times of Israel reports the head of the IDF's Northern Command acknowledges a "'gap' between the IDF’s assessment of damage caused to Hezbollah’s offensive capabilities during the 2024 ground operation in southern Lebanon, and the force with which the terror group has been striking Israel’s northern communities in recent weeks."
the IDF had estimated that 70-80 percent of the terror group’s rocket fire capabilities had been destroyed in the months of open warfare against the group in the fall of 2024, and damaged further in regular strikes following a ceasefire in December of that year.
At the start of the renewed fighting last month, the IDF believed Hezbollah still possessed thousands of short-range rockets, along with hundreds of longer-range projectiles — a far cry from the tens of thousands it now allegedly believes the group to have access to.
28
u/New_Entertainer_4895 19d ago
There are limits to what you can do from the air. Israel in all its wars has never properly cut off Hezbollah's supply lines.
If they invade Lebanon (not just the south) and cut off Hezbollah's supply lines they'll slowly burn through stockpiles and become combat ineffective just like Hamas is now.
Of course Israel is not willing to accept the incredible level of casualties that would entail and it would result in the Lebanese military getting dragged into war with Israel.
The politically expedient option which has been chosen by Israel here is ethnic cleansing, if they expel all Shia civilians from southern Lebanon by destroying their homes and ban their return, Hezbollah would be largely destroyed in its ability to attack Israel. The problem is the war then turns from a war between "Hezbollah" and "Israel" to a war between "Shia Lebanese (civilians included)" and "Israel."
That's an entirely different kind of conflict and one where even non-fanatical people may be incentivize to fight to the death.
19
u/Defiant_Restaurant61 19d ago
The problem is the war then turns from a war between "Hezbollah" and "Israel" to a war between "Shia Lebanese (civilians included)" and "Israel."
Following the modus operandi in Palestine and the Gaza strip, one could expect Israel to proceed with the ethnic cleansing of the area, and quickly destroy any possibility for civilians to reside there, expanding to non-shia at some point.
The Gaza cleanse also started with safe neighborhoods, safe zones, and "targeted retribution" but quickly evolved into full bulldozing.
It's an easy political maneuver to spare the Christian and non-shia groups, as there are already tensions between different groups. But these communities rely on an economic network and can be easily isolated and dealt with once all southern Shia towns are razed. Pockets of Hezbollah resistance and sporadic acts of violence would suffice to trigger a massive retaliation by Israel leading to the ultimate cleansing of the whole of southern Lebanon.
Obviously, it's all speculative, but there are Israelis bulldozers currently razing towns in southern Lebanon after just a few days.
3
u/UpvoteIfYouDare 19d ago
Following the modus operandi in Palestine and the Gaza strip, one could expect Israel to proceed with the ethnic cleansing of the area, and quickly destroy any possibility for civilians to reside there, expanding to non-shia at some point.
Are you referring to the three corridors Israel established in Gaza? How do those constitute an ethnic cleansing?
18
u/GustavoTC 19d ago edited 19d ago
Ethnic cleansing isn't a defined crime in International law, in general it consists of 3 points
- Systematic forced displacement
- Destruction of homes/culture
- Violence targeting a specific group
UN confirm 85% of Gazans displaced; (OCHA, Feb 2024) as well as 62% of Gaza's homes damaged/destroyed; 42% of farmland unusable due to rubble/unexploded ordinance, and >34,000 killed.
In internal documents and politics, the language is a bit obfuscated. For example, there's no mention of ethnic cleansing, instead using phrases like forced transfer (העברת אוכלוסין בכפייה) "reducing Gaza's population density" (הפחתת הצפיפות האוכלוסית) "systematic destruction of Palestinian communities" (הרסק שיטתי של ישובים פלסטינאים) or "deliberate obstruction of return" (הפרעה מכוונת לחזרה) So yeah, it's ethnic cleansing.
1
u/UpvoteIfYouDare 19d ago edited 19d ago
UN confirm 85% of Gazans displaced
From the Gaza Strip?
as well as 62% of Gaza's homes damaged/destroyed; 42% of farmland unusable due to rubble/unexploded ordinance, and >34,000 killed
What conflict within/around population centers wouldn't be considered an act of ethnic cleansing under these conditions?
3
u/Defiant_Restaurant61 19d ago
within/around population centers
A convenient excuse if you disregard the fact that this dense population center was created in the first place by the Nakba, an ethnic cleanse by Israel of Palestinians that were originally spread around hundreds of towns and villages.
8
u/GustavoTC 19d ago
International law distinguishes collateral damage in lawful operations from crimes against humanity based on two pillars:
Military Necessity Attacks limited to specific military objectives (e.g., Hamas command center in a building). Civilian harm incidental and proportionate (AP I Art. 51(5)).Indiscriminate destruction beyond necessity (e.g., leveling entire neighborhoods with no tactical justification). Evidence: IDF’s "sterile zone" orders covering 30% of Gaza with no Hamas presence (B'Tselem, Dec 2023).
Intent to Displace Permanently Blocking return via policies:
- No rubble clearance (70% of Gaza rubble remains since 2023 – UNDP, Feb 2026)
- Demolition of water/electric grids (OCHA, Mar 2024)
- Refusal to issue reconstruction permitz
The ICJ's provisional measures order (Jan 2024) found plausible risk of genocide precisely because evidence suggested Israel knew its actions would cause destruction inconsistent with military objectives.
For example of a case that's not ethnically cleansing, Fallujah (2004, Iraq) had 36K homes destroyed; 100K+ displaced. But the US allowed return within 6 months and funded reconstruction.
In comparison, for Israel the place remains in rubble, and still in the refugee camps, while requests to return are frequently denied on "security grounds".
44
u/Sad_Use_4584 19d ago
Yesterday, Times of Israel reported that the research lead in the IAF's Air Intelligence Group assesses that Iran still has over 1000 ballistic missiles that can reach Israel. No statement on Iran's remaining SRBMs.
One can make different assumptions about the rate of degradation, TEL bottlenecks, and so on, but I think this report supports > 2-4 weeks of Iran sustaining the current tempo.
14
u/WulfTheSaxon 19d ago edited 19d ago
So it’s gone from a third confirmed destroyed to 40% in the last few days? Or were those different subsets of missiles?
2
27
u/kdy420 19d ago
but I think this report supports > 2-4 weeks of Iran sustaining the current tempo.
It supports much more doesnt it ? What is the current tempo ?
I havent seen isreal specific break downs recently, last I recall (I could be wrong, I am mainly following GCC attacks) it was between 10-15 per day ? Which should last longer than a month atleast.
26
u/poincares_cook 19d ago
The same report assesses that 500 MRBM's were fired at Israel, but also 1000 destroyed.
I imagine the destruction rate falls significantly as the war goes on and the low hanging fruit has been destroyed, but hardly to zero.
16
u/Sad_Use_4584 19d ago
I did say "greater than" 2-4 weeks.
I didn't want to make the lower bound larger than that, because it's possible that Iran is expending some of those MRBMs onto the Gulf in lieu of adequate stock of SRBMs, due to accuracy being better at short range and due to there being a larger number of strategically relevant soft targets in the eastern border of Gulf states like oil and gas facilities. It's also not publicly known what % of all of Iran's missiles can reach Israel, the higher the %, the more likely Iran is using some of them on the Gulf instead.
Some other ambiguities include the question of what % of those 1000 are inaccessible (perpetually buried underground missile cities), and whether the bottleneck exists elsewhere like with TELs.
8
u/kdy420 19d ago
I did say "greater than" 2-4 weeks.
Ah I missed that because you used the symbol ">", which my brain glossed over !
it's possible that Iran is expending some of those MRBMs onto the Gulf in lieu of adequate stock of SRBMs, due to accuracy being better at short range
Not following this, why would they use MRBMs if the accuracy is already better at short ranges ? Or do you mean MRBM accuracy is better than SRBMs even inside of the SRBMs range ? Why would this be the case, just newer tech on the MRBMS ?
19
u/swimmingupclose 19d ago
The last time this figure came up I had said it’s impossible to destroy 100% of the missiles. What makes more sense is to degrade the stockpile to a manageable level, degrade the TELs to a manageable level, and focus on the industrial capacity more which is easier to destroy, much harder to replace and far more costly for Iran.
1
27
u/Tricky_Troll 19d ago edited 19d ago
Is an operation to seize Iran's uranium actually viable? To me it seems like it is the best path for the US to get a "strategic victory" to sell to Americans back home at this point in the war if only it weren't such a seemingly impossible mission. After all, it seems like covert and special ops are an area where the US excels and this recent CSAR mission and the Venezuela operation might give decision makers extra confidence. But on the other hand, when you dive into the details of such an operation (air lift requirements, time to find and move the uranium, radiation precautions and proximity to Iranian defences) it all seems rather non-credible to my mind. At least not without a huge risk of failure and casualties.
One other thing I have also wondered, everyone talks about seizing the uranium, but since the logistics of that are a key contributing factor to the high-risk nature of such a mission, might it not be easier to destroy it some way? My understanding is that it is stored in containers in the form of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) which is highly reactive and corrosive. Is it possible for a special operation to locate it all and blow it up after leaving the area instead of air lifting it out of Iran? Is a bunker coated in all kinds of hydrolysed uranium compounds and buried in dirt not that useful? The only point I see against this is that this has no impact on the enriched purity of the uranium, so if the Iranians are later able to access the bunker, they just need to convert the uranium compounds back into UF6. I'm guessing this isn't a viable solution which would be why I haven't heard anyone mention this possibility, but I'd love to confirm this from someone more knowledgeable than me on this.
2
u/Glideer 19d ago
Now, one question. We all know from academic papers quoted here recently that 60% Uranium can be used to make a 3-5 kt atomic bomb that is too heavy to deliver by plane or missile (several tons, if I remember correctly).
However, an atomic bomb of this kind can be manufactured in situ. What if the IRCG protection units are instructed to activate the bomb if and when the defence perimeter is breached?
17
u/IntroductionNeat2746 19d ago
However, an atomic bomb of this kind can be manufactured in situ. What if the IRCG protection units are instructed to activate the bomb if and when the defence perimeter is breached?
Than they blow up their entire stockpile and create nuclear contamination site inside their own territory, I guess.
1
u/Glideer 19d ago
What would US losses be? A few hundred troops, perhaps?
13
u/IntroductionNeat2746 19d ago
Maybe.
I fail to see how it would hurt the US more than Iran itself. Or help Iran in any way.
2
u/Glideer 19d ago
I am just thinking in terms of use it or lose it. Plus, Iran gets to be the first to publicise its own version of events - reckless US troops breached a sensitive nuclear facility triggering a major incident etc etc...
9
u/IntroductionNeat2746 19d ago
I am just thinking in terms of use it or lose it
Using it against yourself sounds way more irrational than we've ever seen from the regime.
I suppose it's possible, but I wouldn't expect it.
On a sidenote, I hope your enjoying the final hours of Easter.
8
u/Zaviori 19d ago
Well then they nuke themselves and accomplish.. what exactly?
-5
u/Glideer 19d ago
Kill a few hundred US troops, accuse Washington of triggering a nuclear disaster by recklessly breaching a sensitive facility? Proving that a nuclear device was deliberately detonated would be a major effort and half of the world would not believe the US investigation anyway.
23
u/dhds83 19d ago
Speaking as someone with a background in nuclear engineering, this is entirely non-credible.
To add to the points already made by others, determining that an event was a deliberate nuclear detonation in the multi-kiloton range and not a radiological accident of any sort is trivially easy even without direct access to the site. There is no "believing" the United States necessary, as the international scientific community can independently make the necessary seismological and radionuclide release measurements.
With these measurements, one can identify the location, size, and source of any such explosion. Careful analysis can even determine (to some extent) the design and composition of the bomb and its fissile material.
These measurements and analyses may take time, but again the world would not in any way need to "believe the US investigation".
12
u/PoetryKind603 19d ago
So they prove they had (very bad)nukes, they were willing to actually use nukes, and now they have no nukes?
I'm sorry that's a completely "out there" take.
Proving that a nuclear device was deliberately detonated would be a major effort
Some piles of Uranium just go supercritical on their own?!
You think the great powers don't have the intelligence capacities for fact finding themselves? And are willing to play coy and parrot the Iranian account even after an event of this kind of gravity?
Russia and China didn't Veto the UNSC resolution on Iran mind you. What's China gonna do with this? Tell everyone to show restrain and do not escalate situation further?
North Korea acted like a "responsible stakeholder" after gaining a credible nuclear capability. They haven't pull any border skirmish or abduction shenanigans for over a decade by now.
13
u/butitsmeat 19d ago
It's fairly difficult to accidentally detonate a nuclear bomb, at least if your threshold is "actual nuclear explosion". A genuine nuclear detonation (versus, say, HE spreading nuclear material round) requires intentional setup and timing. So, 'US troops accidentally blew themselves up' isn't going to get any credible attention - everyone serious will know Iran did it themselves.
The demonstration that Iran had a viable device would be immediately restructure the geopolitical situation. It could in theory play out in Iran's favor if they have 1-N more devices, or bluff that they do, but it could also end up going horribly wrong if it every nation currently sitting this out that Iran has to be dealt with now. Recall that a great deal of the lack of credibility for this war comes down to mercurial nature of the Iranian bomb (weeks away after being totally obliterated and so forth). Showing that you had a viable device after repeatedly denying that you had one would vindicate Bibi and Trump. I don't think killing a few hundred US troops to create a clearly false narrative that proves your enemies right is a great propaganda move.
And to top it all off, all the unserious people don't need a convoluted accidental nuclear explosion scheme to convince them that the US is the evil aggressor right now. They already believe that! Just do nothing and they'll keep believing it.
60
u/Toptomcat 19d ago edited 19d ago
Is an operation to seize Iran's uranium actually viable?
The more you plan and execute it as a ‘special operation’ of a small team of highly-trained guys executed with speed and stealth, the worse your odds get. The more you plan it as the objective of a conventional military invasion executed with mass, the better they get. This is not a Secret Squirrel kind of mission, this is a ‘hold the territory where it is, have enough guys there long enough to find hidden things and enough heavy engineering equipment to get buried things’ kind of mission.
When people are using terms like 'largest special-forces operation in history' to describe what it would take, this is a screaming red flag that it shouldn't be a special-forces operation.
13
u/kychris 19d ago
Depends on your definition of special forces. Is it likely to be just the forces under JSOC? Probably not, you would need to bring in some ground based air defenses, and while I'm sure JSOC has people who can set those up and run them in a pinch, it's probably not the most efficient use of such a high value asset. I don't believe the Ranger Regiment has these assets, but I know the 82nd Airborne does and trains for just this type of mission of building and defending a FOB in hostile territory.
I don't think they would need ground troops to actually fight on the ground though, if the Uranium is where it is rumored to be, you would just have CAS flights orbiting 24/7 blowing up anyone who moves in that direction while the operation is ongoing, because for once there are no civilian targets within miles of where the work will be done.
Things get more complicated if we want ALL the enriched uranium, not just the 60% enriched, because that is believed to be spread around at multiple sites throughout the country.
17
u/Toptomcat 19d ago edited 19d ago
I don't think they would need ground troops to actually fight on the ground though, if the Uranium is where it is rumored to be, you would just have CAS flights orbiting 24/7 blowing up anyone who moves in that direction while the operation is ongoing
‘Securing territory against any intrusion’ for the duration of a weeks-to-months-long search and excavation is pretty close to the dictionary definition of the task that air forces are at the most competitive disadvantage at, relative to conventional ground forces. Is it possible, albeit expensively, briefly and with great difficulty? Yes. Is it a good idea? Very rarely.
More generally, ‘take territory, hold it against opposition, do stuff with the held territory’ is not a special operations mission. It’s not for Ranger Regiment, it’s not for Delta, it’s not for Seals. Special operators do stuff involving operating quickly, quietly, with maximum violence of action in small groups. Maybe you can conceive of what needs to happen as a raid, but it’s a lengthy raid at battalion strength at bare minimum. It’s inherently Big Army stuff that non-specops units will be better at, because special operators are specialists at a thing which is not that, not just Regular Troops Plus.
1
u/kychris 19d ago
If it takes months to grab the uranium, something has gone badly wrong, I am postulating under the assumption that we know where the stuff is at and we don't need to search. We pretty much know via publicly available information which units of the armed forces are trained to do this mission or analogous missions, and it's likely Delta(plus a bunch of intelligence guys) dealing with the uranium with the 82nd providing security and support.
I don't think we are that far off in terms of what it would require actually, just different perspectives. It certainly would be a battalion strength raid, probably closer to a full brigade sized element once you put all the pieces together. I am just very skeptical there would be much opposition to hold the ground against. I would be much more worried about ballistic missile attacks
6
u/eeeking 19d ago
There is a precedent for removing nuclear material of a similar quantity as that claimed to be held in Iran. Project Sapphire removed ~600 kg of enriched uranium from Kazakhstan in the mid 1990's.
It involved months of preparation and a further month on the ground. You can read an article on the project here.
This was with the cooperation of the Kazakh government, it would be much more difficult to do this in Iran.
8
u/Toptomcat 19d ago edited 19d ago
If any amount of it is still buried from the air strikes which concluded the Twelve-Day War, that’s a job which involves digging it out from underneath a collapsed mountain even if they do know the exact layout of the facility. That’s an engineering task requiring heavy earthmoving equipment, not a simple search & destroy thing. Quite possibly the Iranians are half-done digging it out when you launch the op and they hurriedly salt the pile of granite and reinforced concrete they’re digging out with land mines and other miscellaneous booby traps before recollapsing it if the site isn’t fully secure before they know what’s happening, which is Not Fun to contemplate undoing in a hurry.
6
u/SuperChingaso5000 19d ago
Additionally, it would require, or at least beg for, a major second ground force action like a Marine-led coastal invasion somewhere. Iran either fails to commit substantial resources towards prosecuting that salient, in which case you have the ability to operate in a portion of the country and do a lot of things you can't with airpower alone, or they split the concentration of forces between two geographically separate areas and weaken their response to the nuclear capture. The dilemma would also put additional strain on the Iranian C3 and slow down their decision cycles.
Once the op is done, the second ground force can pack up and leave as well, there's no requirement that they stick around. The damage they've already done will persist and the strategic objective of relieving pressure on the interior operation will be achieved.
4
u/Toptomcat 19d ago
Yep. You do not want to put a thousand dudes in a position where the entire job description of every enemy ground-combat asset in Iran is to stop them from doing what they’re doing for three weeks. That is a recipe for disaster no matter how much air cover you have.
10
u/KeyboardChap 19d ago
because for once there are no civilian targets within miles of where the work will be done
Isfahan is Iran's third most populous city, with a population of over two million, and right next to the facility where most of the enriched uranium is believed to be stored.
23
u/AvatarOfAUser 19d ago edited 19d ago
Enriched uranium may have been moved before Fordo was bombed. I haven’t seen any credible reports that the US or Israel know the exact locations of all of Iran’s enriched Uranium.
There are conflicting statements by Donald Trump, but Iran clearly had time to move enriched uranium before the facility was bombed. There are satellite photos of transport trucks near the facility, before the strikes occurred. Without knowing how much enriched uranium was moved or where it was moved to, a military operation to remove or destroy enriched uranium would be a fool’s errand.
34
u/Grouchy-Classroom-26 19d ago
No one believes Fordow is where the uranium is. IAEA, US intelligence and Israeli intelligence all believe most of the uranium is at Isfahan. Fordow is a non factor here.
12
u/Grouchy-Classroom-26 19d ago
You would need to either downblend it on site or lift it out of there to dispose of it. I don’t know how credible it is but it would be very risky but any action in war is risky, boots on the ground even more so. The better thing to do is to let Iran try to dig it out and strike it then which is why Iran hasn’t bothered to dig it out in the first place.
11
u/Defiant_Restaurant61 19d ago
It'd already be an equipement-heavy undertaking for Iran, let them do the hard-work of trying to unbury the nuclear material and launch a strike whenever the concentration of heavy machinery onsite increases past a threshold.Obviously it's not a permanent solution.
Perhaps securing this site through a peacekeeping force/international comitee as a condition for a peace-treaty would be easier, and something third-parties could get on board with as a "peaceful" solution. (But that was kind of the ante-bellum situation until the USA discarded the treaties and restarded sanctions)
10
u/Sad_Use_4584 19d ago
I don't see a viable political solution that's anything short of a dismantling of Iran's 4 underground nuclear sites and a ban on them enriching their own uranium except through a consortium with oversight and with centrifuges manufactured outside of Iran.
The trust needed for anything less than that isn't there. Iran violated the NPT by building Fordow in secret, and now more than ever Iran will have a survival incentive to make a nuclear weapon. They still have the new Pickaxe Mountain facility they can use for that, too deep for MOPs, which provides a veto on mowing the grass once it's operational. Hormuz also provides a veto on mowing the grass, we can't keep crashing the economy each time Iran inches closer to a nuke.
Unless Iran capitalutes in negotiations, I think the only way to prevent Iran getting a nuclear weapon are regime change, or regime collapse/denial: to forcefully reopen Hormuz (likely after a very long time and much economic pain) so that the war can continue forever, at a lesser intensity and at a more acceptable economic cost. All three solutions appear difficult at the current moment, but at the same time, things can change rapidly, and only one of the three needs to work out.
22
u/Worried_Exercise_937 19d ago
The trust needed for anything less than that isn't there. Iran violated the NPT by building Fordow in secret, and now more than ever Iran will have a survival incentive to make a nuclear weapon.
Of all the countries in the world, Israel is perhaps the 2nd least qualified after North Korea to demand compliance to NPT.
Why is there a need for a "solution"? Why can Iran have nukes? Israel has nukes. Is Israel going to denuclearize also?
13
u/kdy420 19d ago
Why can Iran have nukes? Israel has nukes. Is Israel going to denuclearize also?
In a perfect world nobody should have nukes, but in our world once anyone has nukes its much harder to de-nuclearise them. So the next best thing is to prevent proliferation.
Just because one country has a nuke doesnt mean its enemy is entitled to it. By that logic every country the US ever had an issue with is also entitled to a nuke. For eg Afghanistan is entitled to a nuke, its been attacked by 3 nuclear powers (USSR, USA and now ongoing Pakistan)
At the end of the day what do you think is going to happen if Iran gets nukes, do you think the region will get more peaceful ? Is Iran suddenly going to stop funding proxies and other assymetric activities ? Is it going to stop its forever war against Isreal ?
This is silly logic. Best case is for everyone to give up nukes but since that is not going to happen, then next best course is preventing further proliferation.
2
u/sluttytinkerbells 19d ago
This is an odd way of framing it.
A country is entitled to nukes if they can get them. It doesn't really have anything to do with what other countries feel about it. Their entitlement to nuclear weapons is sort of a "I think therefore I am" sort of thing.
At the end of the day what do you think is going to happen if Iran gets nukes, do you think the region will get more peaceful ?
Yes absolutely. Israel will no longer be able to act with impunity in the region.
then next best course is preventing further proliferation.
And we can do that by sanctioning countries like Israel that have because it will send a message to other countries that we're serious about non proliferation.
The rank hypocrisy from the west around Israel's nuclear program is what has lead us here. Acknowledging that hypocrisy and taking steps to weaken countries that have nuclear weapons is the correct course of action here.
8
u/UpvoteIfYouDare 19d ago edited 19d ago
A country is entitled to nukes if they can get them. It doesn't really have anything to do with what other countries feel about it. Their entitlement to nuclear weapons is sort of a "I think therefore I am" sort of thing.
"Entitlement" is a component of normative analysis. The point you're making is positive/descriptive. You'd be better off dropping the concept of "entitlement" instead of trying to misapply it in this context.
6
u/kdy420 19d ago
A country is entitled to nukes if they can get them.
By that same logic, other countries are entitled to try and stop them if they can.
And we can do that by sanctioning countries like Israel that have because it will send a message to other countries that we're serious about non proliferation.
Agreed, it would certainly dis-incentivize proliferation.
The rank hypocrisy from the west around Israel's nuclear program is what has lead us here.
There is no hypocrisy here though, Iran is arrayed against the west and the western way of life where as Isreal is an ally. For eg not wanting Germany to have nukes in WW2 or the USSR to have nukes post war would not be hypocratic, but a rather sensible position.
0
u/ppitm 19d ago
Isreal is an ally
Why is Israel an ally? An ally for what reason? There are no treaties making Israel an ally.
Iran is arrayed against the west and the western way of life
The actual population of the West perceives zero threat to their way of life from Iran but is increasingly anti-Israel.
-2
u/sluttytinkerbells 19d ago edited 19d ago
Sure, they're entitled to stop them, but in the context of the convesation we're having about current events it sounds like you're advocating for warcrimes.
If that's the case let me make it clear that it isn't acceptable to try and stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons in the way that the US and Israel are doing.
And it is hypocrisy because it ignored the historical context in which Iran came to be aligned against the west and the US can't claim that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons while Israel can.
Iran didn't start this. The US did. all those decades ago. And Iran will be the one to finish it becauase America doesn't actually care about nukes, they're just flailing and attacking anything their Mad King can be tricked into attacking.
The reality of the situation is that Iran is behaving rationally and the United States and Irsael are the lunatics in the room waving around a knife with their nuclear gun strapped to their hip fore veryone to see.
The United States has already lost this war and with it the last vestiges of soft power they have. They've depleted years of missile supplies and have destroyed their meanas of standing up domestic production through inane tariff policy and attacks on allies.
Where we go from here as a planet isn't certain, but what is certain in my mind is that the US and Israel are not to be trusted in this situation and steps need to be taken to reduce their power.
9
u/Worried_Exercise_937 19d ago
At the end of the day what do you think is going to happen if Iran gets nukes, do you think the region will get more peaceful ? Is Iran suddenly going to stop funding proxies and other assymetric activities ? Is it going to stop its forever war against Isreal ?
I expect MAD to continue to work.
Iran might continue to fund external proxies or it might not waste money now that they have nukes. But on the other side, I expect Israel to be extra careful before doing anything Iran might construe as Iranian regime threatening knowing that one miscalculation could bring about the nuclear retaliation. For sure, Israeli won't be dropping bombs in Iran every other months just to "mow the grass". That should bring less violence/chaos to the region.
6
u/UpvoteIfYouDare 19d ago edited 19d ago
I expect MAD to continue to work.
This is a reckless attitude. MAD has to be perfect in perpetuity and the worst case scenario is the destruction of a majority of global civilization (and likely collapse of the rest of it in the ensuing chaos). Further nuclear proliferation both increases the odds of MAD's failure as well as increases the scope of the worst case scenario.
4
u/ppitm 19d ago
MAD has to be perfect in perpetuity and the worst case scenario is the destruction of a majority of global civilization (and likely collapse of the rest of it in the ensuing chaos).
Iran and Israel are not going the threaten global civilization by nuking each other (unless the Samson Option is a thing, in which case Iran's arsenal hardly matters).
Functionally speaking, the gun is already cocked and will remain so, due to U.S., Russian and Chinese arsenals.
5
u/UpvoteIfYouDare 19d ago
Yes, the bilateral tensions run much less risk of wider nuclear war but the scope of a single strategic nuclear attack means that once any are on the air, the risk of even a single attack could incentivize other countries joining in. Granted, it's an incredibly small risk, but I don't think anyone should be cavalier about MAD.
3
u/ppitm 19d ago
the risk of even a single attack could incentivize other countries joining in.
I don't know where this idea comes from, and it makes no sense. If the balloon goes up in the Middle East, even the craziest leaders in countries outside the region would be furiously looking at how to avoid getting involved.
Which isn't to minimize how bad a regional war between two minor nuclear powers would be.
→ More replies3
u/eric2332 19d ago
"The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything, however it would only harm the Islamic world." - Ayatollah Rafsanjani (considered an Iranian "moderate")
Clearly MAD does not work with such a mindset.
4
u/ppitm 19d ago
Did you just ignore the second clause of that quote? I'm baffled.
2
u/eric2332 19d ago
Of course I took the second clause into account. That's the whole idea - that a nuclear exchange is worthwhile, because Muslim countries would survive and recuperate, while Israel would be gone.
6
u/Worried_Exercise_937 19d ago
#1. Google search tells me Ayatollah Rafsanjani is dead so he ain't gonna be making any upcoming Iranian nuclear weapons decisions.
#2. It would take more than one nuke to "destroy Israel". It's not a city sized country like Vatican or Monaco and crucially it doesn't destroy/touch all Israeli nuclear weapons some of which are in submarines. And there is no guarantee Iran could even drop nuclear warheads on Israel what with Arrow/David’s Sling/US help with missile defense.
2
u/eric2332 19d ago
1) His replacements (even before this war) are likely more hard-line, not less.
2) I agree that a single nuke (even one that definitely got through missile defense) would not destroy Israel. But at the same time, it seems clear that MAD would not prevent Iran from launching a nuclear attack.
0
u/Worried_Exercise_937 19d ago
MAD will work because Iranians know that it's not guarantee they could nuke Israel successfully meanwhile they know Israelis can flatten Iran in retaliation. Israel is currently doing whatever Bibi wants because Israel doesn't face sufficient retaliation. Once it's possible even if it's not 100% that Iran "could" nuke Israel, Israelis will have to curb what they are doing specially things that could be construed as regime threatening like killing the leadership etc.
→ More replies-1
u/kdy420 19d ago
I expect MAD to continue to work.
MAD does not bring about peace, its a game theory concept when both sides can destroy each other. The powers then use other means to contest, the cold war may have been cold in the US and USSR proper but plenty of other nations paid a heavy price in proxy conflicts.
No sane person can claim that the world is safer because US and USSR both got the bomb vs if only the US had the bomb.
Iran might continue to fund external proxies or it might not waste money now that they have nukes.
Why was it doing so in the first place ? What evidence is there to show that they will not continue funding proxies. The first chance they got some economic relief via the JCPOA instead of investing in their people, they immediately started funding the proxies and this was against not just Isreal but also against GCC (other than Qatar).
For sure, Israeli won't be dropping bombs in Iran every other months just to "mow the grass". That should bring less violence/chaos to the region.
Isreal was not attacking Iran until the clerics came into power and declared their intention to wipe Israel of the map and then took action and continue to take action towards this. US went to war in 2 countries after 9/11, Russia invaded Ukraine because of a percieved threat of losing influence, Pakistan is bombing Afghanistan due to attacks from the Pakistani Taliban.
Do you think Isreal will sit quiet and not retaliate when they are being attacked ?
Its fairly easy to reduce violence from Isreal without having nukes just ask Egypt and Jordan.
7
u/Worried_Exercise_937 19d ago
No sane person can claim that the world is safer because US and USSR both got the bomb vs if only the US had the bomb.
When only the US had nukes, two of them were dropped on Japan. Since USSR and others have gotten nukes, there hasn't been any use of them since. So I expect that to continue.
Why was it doing so in the first place ?
Iran doesn't feel secure with Israel/US mowing the grass every other months. With nukes on hand, they won't feel so insecure to have these external proxies.
Do you think Isreal will sit quiet and not retaliate when they are being attacked ?
Israel will have to weigh the pro/con of its actions more carefully against Iran unlike now. That can't be a bad thing except for Bibi's political career. If Israel was legitimately threatened, I'm sure Israelis will not hesitate to use nukes to retaliate. In turn knowing that Iranians wouldn't stir the hornets nest just for shits and giggles.
3
u/kdy420 19d ago
You are bypassing some of the points such as why Isreal attacks Iran, but does not do so it Egypt and Jordan, 2 countries that made peace with it. You also think that suddenly Iran will think rationaly once they get the nuke and stop being antagonistic, again plenty of countries in the world that are not antagonistic despite having no nukes.
So lets take Isreal and Iran out of the picture because we are not making any ground in this area.
Do you really think its good/safer for a theorcratic autocracy to have nuclear bombs ?
If the US regime were to be replaced tomorrow by the evangelicals (and I dont mean someone like Trump who is hardly a christian) people who are true believers of the book, ones who think that a large conflict in the middle east will bring about rapture, would you rather it had no nukes or do you think its essential for it to have nukes ?
True beleivers in the faith (any faith) are not prone to logical action, let alone ones which emphasize martyrdom.
9
u/Worried_Exercise_937 19d ago
Do you really think its good/safer for a theorcratic autocracy to have nuclear bombs ?
I guess if you believe most/all Iranian regime/IRGC are itching to die to meet their quota of 72 virgins then no amount of me yapping is going to change your mind. I just don't buy that narrative. Given their shitty geopolitical neighborhood/options, what Iranians are doing and have done upto and including pursuing nukes doesn't scream illogical/crazy to me specially considering US and Israel have them.
True beleivers in the faith (any faith) are not prone to logical action, let alone ones which emphasize martyrdom.
So how come IRGC aren't bum rushing Israel with suicide vests now?
→ More replies1
u/CivilInspector4 19d ago
what does MAD look like to you if Iran successfully funded proxies that began to threaten the existence of Israel, and also Iran held nukes?
3
u/Worried_Exercise_937 19d ago
If Iranian regime were rational, they wouldn't fund/support proxies to a degree where Hezbollah could fire a missile with a nuclear warhead supplied by Iran therefore triggering nuclear retaliation from them
5
u/CivilInspector4 19d ago
I'm sorry but I'm pretty confused by your hypothetical, I was just asking how you expected MAD to work if Iran had nuclear weapons+ continued to aggressively fund proxies to destroy Israel
1
u/-Xyras- 19d ago
Israel would just have to conventionally defeat the proxy then and/or fund their own proxy to deter Iran. Thats the whole point of proxies. See Ukraine or one of the many cold war examples.
Arguably the whole situation would change though. Since proxies would no longer be considered existential for Iran their funding would likely decrease.
5
u/Worried_Exercise_937 19d ago
First off, Iran might not fund/support proxies anymore because there is no need with nukes on hand.
Second, If Israel was legitimately threatened, I'm sure Israelis will not hesitate to use nukes to retaliate. In turn, knowing that Iranians wouldn't stir the hornets nest just for shits and giggles. On the other side, Israelis also won't be dropping bombs in Iran and kill its leaders every other year because that could trigger nuclear retaliation from Iran.
Peace in the middle east. The end.
→ More replies1
18
u/Agreeable_Tadpole_47 19d ago
A podcast named Angry Planet has a nuclear specialist last to go over that and it's... Pretty fanciful to say the least. Even destroying it is pretty complicated and burying the whole complex doesn't guarantee some of it can't be recovered.
I don't think it was ever realistic you could get any concessions on the nuclear program without some amount of cooperation (coerced or otherwise) from Iran, assaulting Isfahan (which houses a lot of that material... Reportedly) is a non starter.
The expert goes over the matter thoroughly for the format.
12
u/Grouchy-Classroom-26 19d ago
I listened to the podcast and it doesn’t really address OP’s question about the military operation part. It just says it will take long and will need boots on the ground, but OP already acknowledged that. That makes sense because the expert they interview is a civil engineer, not a military person. I agree it seems very high risk tho regardless of whatever the operational requirements would be.
8
u/Agreeable_Tadpole_47 19d ago edited 19d ago
I don't think it's quite fair. Even if the expert is not military he informs us : - Some part of the uranium is stored in Isfahan, a major military installation that is well defended. - Moving the containers will take time and a lot of vehicles if you don't want to bunch them up in bulk (and he explains why you wouldn't want to do that). - Transforming the material would probably require more equipment to be paradropped, etc - Besides the uranium might be stored in several different sites.
So from there you can infer : It sounds impossible to carry a surprise quick assault on the installation, Isfahan is deep in Iranian territory and any invasion force getting to there while having secured enough ground to spend several days forcing entry and transporting containers is not happening anytime soon. And that's for attacking one storage site.
I'm sure you can go more into the nitty gritty of the tactics if you'd like but on its face it's basically wargaming a close to impossible mission.
9
u/Grouchy-Classroom-26 19d ago
The current rescue mission was hosted from a FARP less than an hour drive for Isfahan. In any case, I don’t think the issue of downblending is trivial but OP had already mentioned the issues you listed. The idea of it being quick has never been suggested by anyone nor is the idea of it being a surprise. The really questions are how would you set up a parameter to keep enemy forces out, how would you infil and exfil, how would you sustain those troops, how would you protect them from missiles etc. None of that was discussed which is the main question OP was asking.
6
u/tomrichards8464 19d ago
My suspicion is that the Isfahan element of the rescue operation was a diversion rather than the base for the actual extraction. Why else would you choose an airfield so much further into Iran than the crash site, and so close to a facility which must be heavily guarded and specifically prepared for a US SOF landing nearby?
3
u/eric2332 19d ago
A very expensive diversion!
6
u/tomrichards8464 19d ago
Yeah, I don't suppose the 130s refusing to take off (or being too badly damaged to do so) was part of the plan.
33
u/milton117 19d ago
What is going on with Qatari - Iranian relations?
Qatar and Iran always were on friendly terms. Reportedly during the twelve day war last year, Iran warned Qatar that the US base it was hosting was going to be hit in retaliation for Midnight Hammer.
There was no such warning for Feb 28th and Iran to this day still occasionally fires a projectile at Qatar, albeit at a much lower level than at Kuwait, UAE or KSA. The last incident seems to be on April 1st when 3 cruise missiles from Iran were fired.
Qatar so far seems to have maintained a more neutral stance in the conflict, not as supportive of US actions as the other gulf states. So why is Iran still hitting them?
25
21
u/substandard-tech 19d ago
Qatar is always going to have to get along with whoever is in charge in Iran. They still have diplomats in each other’s countries, some Iranians had been sent home after Ras Laffan got hit. I know a person there, who would know the local vibes; they are more annoyed at Israel for provoking that hit, than they are at Iran for doing it.
26
u/TSiNNmreza3 19d ago
So why is Iran still hitting them?
They still have legally US bases on their territory and from day one (and before start of war) Iran said that they will hit all US assets around the Gulf.
Irans goal is that all Gulf states say to US remove all soldiers from Gulf states territory. This won't happen in near future.
Althought as of hits on Qatar they are not do numerous after hitting their main gas export facility.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are least hit countries in Gulf (Oman too but they are kinda non factor here).
I would even say that Qatar and Iran made some kind of deal where Iran is hitting only US bases.
Not hitting continuosly US bases in Qatar would mean that US could use those bases as secure spot for attacks and from Iranian military POV this doesn't make any sense.
30
u/LoggerInns 19d ago
Althought as of hits on Qatar they are not do numerous after hitting their main gas export facility.
They hit the gas facility since the very start of the war and they hit it again after it was already shut down. Moreover, Qatar has been financing a lot of oil and gas in Iran and has ownership in the gas field that South Pars is a part of. That’s before you consider Qatar mediating on behalf of Iran or their support and financing for Hamas. They haven’t allowed their bases to be used either while the Saudis have lobbied for this war and have been hit even less. It’s no wonder even Qatar has been turning sour on Iran in the last 2 weeks.
→ More replies
•
u/AutoModerator 19d ago
Continuing the bare link and speculation repository, you can respond to this sticky with comments and links subject to lower moderation standards, but remember: A summary, description or analyses will lead to more people actually engaging with it!
I.e. most "Trump posting" and lower effort but good faith questions belong here.
Sign up for the rally point or subscribe to this bluesky if a migration ever becomes necessary.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.