By and large this seems accurate.Octavious wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 1:07 pmNot the nuclear site itself, in fact. Israel, in a brilliant display of hotspur, targeted the missile defence system that protects the nuclear site.
So, the dialogue of the last few weeks can be summised as follows
Israel assassinate Zahedi while he thinks he's safe in the fake consulate: "We're pissed off and we're not playing games any more. The rules have changed. If you think you can continue to waltz back and forth through your vassal states to fight a proxy war against us you have another think coming. No more"
Iran, firing a barrage of missiles and drones at Israel: "Unacceptable, I'm afraid. If you target our people directly like this we are more than willing to attack you directly in response. You don't want to do that, and if you try it again we will respond with even greater magnitude"
Israel, firing a missile to take out some of Iran's defence system: "The difference is that we have an effective defence system and you don't. We can hit you hard whenever we want, and we know where your nuclear sites are. You can do shit. So, off you fuck"
Time will tell as to who has made the stronger argument, but my money is on Israel
The details of the Israeli strike which I saw seemed to indicate hitting Iranian planes which would be used to defend against strikes on their nuclear facilities, but maybe that is the same reported strike you saw with different details.
The other issue is that this strike was near a nuclear facility for (let's just say Step 3) an early stage of bomb production, but their centrifuges (let's say step 4) are deep underground and possibly safe from air strokes (also far away from the attack).
If Iran has already processed enough Uranium Ore through step 3, hitting that facility will do nothing to prevent step 4. And some estimates indicate this is indeed the case.
Hopefully this will not escalate. But then, we've recently seen a dramatic shift in the nuclear deterence game.
Basically, Putin has decided to call the nuclear bluff. You won't attack him because he has nuclear weapons and thus he can do whatever he wants... And it is possible that this strategic thinking will spread, the a NATO country deciding to strike Russian assets (whether the US hitting something in Syria, or France in Africa) seems pretty likely.
You can't let you opponent take advantage of the situation like that, in the long term (unless Russia loses the war in Ukraine) so the question is how long before a NATO country calls Russia's bluff, and then we are one step closer to nuclear disaster.
Thankfully the US appears to be sending Ukraine military aid, and the EU continues to work to improve their own defensive capabilities. So despite being a pacifist, I am happy to see defence of self and others.