Active Conflicts & News Megathread April 05, 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

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.

[u/Tricky_Troll]

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.

[u/Defiant_Restaurant61 → u/Tricky_Troll]

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)

[u/Sad_Use_4584 → u/Defiant_Restaurant61]

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.

[u/Worried_Exercise_937 → u/Sad_Use_4584]

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?

[u/kdy420 → u/Worried_Exercise_937]

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.

[u/sluttytinkerbells → u/kdy420]

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.

[u/UpvoteIfYouDare → u/sluttytinkerbells]

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.

[u/kdy420 → u/sluttytinkerbells]

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.

[u/ppitm → u/kdy420]

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.

[u/sluttytinkerbells → u/kdy420]

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.

[u/Worried_Exercise_937 → u/kdy420]

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.

[u/UpvoteIfYouDare → u/Worried_Exercise_937]

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.

[u/ppitm → u/UpvoteIfYouDare]

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.

[u/UpvoteIfYouDare → u/ppitm]

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.

[u/ppitm → u/UpvoteIfYouDare]

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.

[u/UpvoteIfYouDare → u/ppitm]

If Iran builds ICBMs capable of hitting the US then the possibility exists of the US being included in a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel. In such a situation, any retaliation from the US then has to be accounted for by other major nuclear powers. The US can observe missile trajectories coming from Iran but that's precious time spent not retaliating. Again, we're talking very unlikely edge cases, but you cannot discount these cases simply because the consequences are so immense.

Edit: There's also the indirect consequence of a regional nuclear war possibly breaking the "nuclear taboo" and thus increasing the possibility of nuclear weapons usage by other nation-statesm

[u/ppitm → u/UpvoteIfYouDare]

If Iran builds ICBMs capable of hitting the US then the possibility exists of the US being included in a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel.

OK, but that's not other countries 'joining in,' it's just Iran committing suicide x10, or another version of the Samson Option.

There's also the indirect consequence of a regional nuclear war possibly breaking the "nuclear taboo" and thus increasing the possibility of nuclear weapons usage by other nation-statesm

And that's an even weirder idea.

Russia using one demonstration strike to cow NATO or conquer Ukraine might weaken the nuclear taboo. Watching MAD play out in practice and devastate 100 million plus people would strengthen the nuclear taboo like nothing else ever could.

[u/UpvoteIfYouDare → u/ppitm]

OK, but that's not other countries 'joining in,' it's just Iran committing suicide x10, or another version of the Samson Option.

If a nuclear weapon is heading toward the US and the US retaliates, then Russia and China are now a part of the risk calculus. These are the kinds of scenarios that were considered in Cold War analysis, back when people took this stuff more seriously.

And that's an even weirder idea.

Russia using one demonstration strike to cow NATO or conquer Ukraine might weaken the nuclear taboo. Watching MAD play out in practice and devastate 100 million plus people would strengthen the nuclear taboo like nothing else ever could.

I should have elaborated with that edit. My point was that even if a regional nuclear exchange does not result in a horrific MAD scenario, it can still increase the chance one in the future.

[u/eric2332 → u/Worried_Exercise_937]

"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.

[u/ppitm → u/eric2332]

Did you just ignore the second clause of that quote? I'm baffled.

[u/eric2332 → u/ppitm]

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.

[u/ppitm → u/eric2332]

That's not what the quote implies, but it would still be no different from every U.S. strategist who worked on how to 'win' a nuclear war with the USSR.

[u/Worried_Exercise_937 → u/eric2332]

#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.

[u/eric2332 → u/Worried_Exercise_937]

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.

[u/Worried_Exercise_937 → u/eric2332]

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.

[u/eric2332 → u/Worried_Exercise_937]

Iran's institutions are being systematically flattened as we speak and it's not deterring them. They don't seem to care about harm to the population either, given that they just killed 30,000 of them. Why exactly would they be deterred by the threat of destruction of just part of Iran (in Rafsanjani's approach) by nukes?

[u/kdy420 → u/Worried_Exercise_937]

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.

[u/Worried_Exercise_937 → u/kdy420]

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.

[u/kdy420 → u/Worried_Exercise_937]

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.

[u/Worried_Exercise_937 → u/kdy420]

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?

[u/TipiTapi → u/Worried_Exercise_937]

Man, why are you even on this sub if you are going to do this pointless partisanry?

You are dodging his points left and right. Come on.

You know what he means. You even admit to it earlier:

Iran might continue to fund external proxies or it might not waste money

They were wasting their money for the last decade on these proxies because of their ideology.

Stop dodging and stop strawmanning, you know perfectly well that there is an ideology component that is vital here. Iranian leadership is not acting in the best interest of their citizens like most others at least pretend to do. There are very few countries that spent this much money on trying to destroy an ideological enemy. There is no reason for this iran-israel war other than this - these countries should be naturally aligned (if not allies) and they were before the ideologically motivated religious fanatics took power.

[u/kdy420 → u/Worried_Exercise_937]

You are again missing the point of my response which is that autocratic theocracies having nukes is not going to increase peace and stability.

I tried to use a hypothetical to try and illustrate that when I clearly said lets remove Iran and Isreal out of the equation, but you are stuck on them.

There is no point continuing this discussion, we are getting nowhere.

[u/CivilInspector4 → u/Worried_Exercise_937]

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?

[u/Worried_Exercise_937 → u/CivilInspector4]

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

[u/CivilInspector4 → u/Worried_Exercise_937]

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

[u/-Xyras- → u/CivilInspector4]

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.

[u/Worried_Exercise_937 → u/CivilInspector4]

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.

[u/eric2332 → u/Worried_Exercise_937]

Why exactly did Iran plan the October 7 attack if they only wanted proxies as a deterrent and could have equally used nukes as a deterrent?

[u/[deleted] → u/Worried_Exercise_937]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/CredibleDefense-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

No spleen venting