Israel / Palestine

[BoldonLad]

And Israel's been bombing eg police stations so should the current regime collapse more likely to have a failure of law and order. But maybe that's what they want anyway eg they were bombing Syria just in case the new regime might have been unfriendly (and I guess they thought bombing them would ensure they were friendly).

Israel want regime change but there is no other regime to take over if they destroy the current one. So current regime collapses and what then? Nobody to replace them and ... what? No though going on by those attacking.

Must emphasise I'm not defending the current Iranian regime, but I also think that those doing and considering preemptive attacks don't really have a plan beyond dropping some bombs.

Ian

Well, that has never happened before has it? 😂

 

[First Aspect]

Unconditional surrender has a long established and well understood meaning in the Star Trek universe.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

You mean the negotiations they've been having over the last couple of months with more meetings scheduled for eg this Sunday. Or maybe the agreement that was negotiated years ago that Trump tore-up (that all commentators agree would have stopped Iran's nuclear program from being anywhere near it is today).

No, or slightly better worded not limited to, the first Trump administrator tried after tearing the old one(due to Iranian breach of contract mind you) the Biden administration tried and now back in March the Trump administration tried. And yes the obama deal woudn't put then at the level they are today but also it's holding up an paper result because experts at the time also siad they did not get enough acces to ensure the deal was actually met. So it cool to claim something would be better under term X or Y but if you can't be sure all parties are complying with term X and Y it doesn't really say a lot does it?

Negotiations are complex and take time as it's somewhat more that "Unconditional surrender" - which in itself is meaningless. What does an "unconditional surrender" mean, that Government stops weapons developemnt in which case what inspections, what verifications, by whom with what powers, when with what constraints, etc. Or does Netanyahu get to govern the entire country, what does this "surrender" mean?

In this case "Unconditional surrender" was said in relation to the nuclear programme, Trump goes into the negotiations with the per-determined terms of no nuclear weapons for Iran. i guess inspections and such would be part of the ''surrender deal''

What regime would that be then? All various experts interviewed (and there are quite a few from various research institutes, etc.) seem to be saying there is nobody "waiting in the wings" in any position to take over.

etc., etc.

Ian

Yeah but those various experts didn't see Isreal attacking Iran in the way they did, did they? And also being so successful where Iran could fire up to a 100 missiles earlier they clearly lost a lot of that capacity now.
I have no idea what kind of alternative they would have lined up if at all and how succesfull it would be but if you see how much inside help they must have had, i can't inmagine they not having something like that planned.

 

[Psamathe]

What regime would that be then? All various experts interviewed (and there are quite a few from various research institutes, etc.) seem to be saying there is nobody "waiting in the wings" in any position to take over.

Yeah but those various experts didn't see Isreal attacking Iran in the way they did, did they?

Maybe becasue they are experts on Iran not on Israel. That said people have been aware of Netanyahu's wishes to attack Iran for years (he's been saying it in public often enough so it comes down to when rather than if and that starts bringing in factors like US/Trump loss of influence, Putin demonstrating that there are no consequences from ignoring Trump, etc. so predictions about Israel attacking Iran come down more to a sweepsteak on the day/hour than.

But they are experts on Iran, many Iranian themselves (eg BBC Monitoring) so language, country, etc. all well known to them.

Ian

 

[rakkor]

I'm very pleased to see that Israel have acknowledged that the bombing of hospitals is a war crime, I hope everyone that sanctioned the bombing of hospitals in Israel and Gaza are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law

 

[CXRAndy]

Did Iran find evidence of tunnels and weapons in these hospitals

 

[PurplePenguin]

I'm very pleased to see that Israel have acknowledged that the bombing of hospitals is a war crime, I hope everyone that sanctioned the bombing of hospitals in Israel and Gaza are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law

They damaged an Iranian hospital as well. Apparently, that was ok because it was just the shock wave from hitting a nearby military target.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

I'm very pleased to see that Israel have acknowledged that the bombing of hospitals is a war crime, I hope everyone that sanctioned the bombing of hospitals in Israel and Gaza are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law

Watch to go full scale hypocrite and claim their attacks are justified because the very same excuses Iran can't use according to them.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Watch to go full scale hypocrite and claim their attacks are justified because the very same excuses Iran can't use according to them.

Are you criticising Israel?

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Are you criticising Israel?

assuming you can read yes looks like it right?

 

[matticus]

WMDs anyone?
Do we have any evidence that Iran has a bomb? Why don’t they show us the evidence?
Netanyahu has been warning of Iranian nuclear bombs being imminent for over 30 years. So he’s been wrong on every previous occasion.

Iran had a confirmed weapons plan in 1989. Do you think it would have been better to stand back until we were sure the program had come to fruition?

 

[Ian H]

Iran had a confirmed weapons plan in 1989. Do you think it would have been better to stand back until we were sure the program had come to fruition?

No, we should have gone in and stopped them like we did in N Korea and Israel.

Er...

 

[Pblakeney]

Iran had a confirmed weapons plan in 1989. Do you think it would have been better to stand back until we were sure the program had come to fruition?

There was an accord in place and Iran was being monitored. Even up until a week ago all evidence was that they don't have weapons.
What has changed since, other than Netanyahu unilaterally deciding to attack?

 

[Psamathe]

Iran had a confirmed weapons plan in 1989. Do you think it would have been better to stand back until we were sure the program had come to fruition?

For me it's not about their intent, but about how long until they actually get one and the best way to stop that happening long term.

And by all accounts they don't have one, have not yet given the instructions to make one and are some time away from actually having one.

And I don't think bombing them is an effective way to stop them getting one. So I regard Israel's attacks as their way to stop negotiated agreements (which Netanyahu has always been against). All commentators (knowledgeable ones) say that has the previous agreements have stayied in place wthey would be nowhere near where they are now.

And that they don't have one (ie don't have "capability") means that under International Law there is no legal justification for preemptive attacks.

Ian

 

[matticus]

For me it's not about their intent, but about how long until they actually get one and the best way to stop that happening long term.

You'd be an idiot to ignore their intent. And to say they're a long way off, no need to act yet ... again, idiot.