Post election prediction

It's getting little complex but...
Trump do not care, he is not been expected to be hit by a nuke from Iran any time soon. Then again the AC/DC song. cuz I'm T.N.T oil oil oil comes to mind.
The second parameter is the Israel lobby got US by the balls. Apparently it's stronger than any migrant or woke matters.
The third parameter was that Trump said he secretly gave them 60 days to have talks with Israel and sort it out but they did nothing.

Netanyahu needs to stay in power and prevent elections. I'm on a 50-50 if he actually believes that they have nukes, leaning to believe that they know they do not have nukes but want a further control in the region as started with the previous countries. You know appetite comes when you start eating.

The last thought is that even if the have a dirty bomb the won't go for it as that will give Israel and excuse to fire nukes.
Taken that into consideration I think my most close scenario is that Trump wants the resources and Israel want the region control.

Finally what they do now, push the Iran more on the victim countries and de-excuse Terrorism. Talking about the Anglo Saxons , we always had good relationships with both countries so we are somewhat in the middle.

Edit.
Also some additions.
To the idiots that thought Israel Iron Dome had 99% prevention , as it turns out, you are idiots.
Also the scenario starts to look more and more like the Saddam Hussein "weapons of mass destruction"

For as long as I could remember, I could never understand why any nation believes it should have the right to determine who gets to have nukes while having nukes themselves. I've never understood this hypocrisy.

Global power 1o1. We got it you don't, we set the rules.

Something everyone will enjoy..If I can get it to animate... :p


https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2...tzMc/giphy.gif



Nop. Classic VB forums. Still in 1999.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapator

To the idiots that thought Israel Iron Dome had 99% prevention , as it turns out, you are idiots.
Also the scenario starts to look more and more like the Saddam Hussein "weapons of mass destruction"

---

Iron Dome was designed to stop the slower, shorter range, missiles from Gaza and Lebanon, whereas Iran is firing ballistic missiles. The dome isn't so good for that, which is why Trump's golden dome is not going to function currently. I think it's a worthwhile area to research, it just should be recognized that it won't do a good enough job, currently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

For as long as I could remember, I could never understand why any nation believes it should have the right to determine who gets to have nukes while having nukes themselves. I've never understood this hypocrisy.

---

As far as I can tell, it was mostly a recognition that nukes are a bad idea for everybody, but if you already have them, and your rival already has them, then neither one is willing to give them up completely. I think nukes took off, with the recognition that they weren't a good idea coming considerably later. Not certain, though.

Thankfully Nazi did not have them. Also if Nukes are to be used it would be the sticks and stones WWIV that they talk about. So probably best no one have them but that will not happen.

Yeah. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty didn't go into force until 1970. The cat wasn't just out of the bag by then, it had eaten the bag and crapped it back out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

As far as I can tell, it was mostly a recognition that nukes are a bad idea for everybody, but if you already have them, and your rival already has them, then neither one is willing to give them up completely. I think nukes took off, with the recognition that they weren't a good idea coming considerably later. Not certain, though.

---

See, I get that rationale, but the thing is, I find it quite insulting that the powers that be expect us to accept this rationale while they kept improving their own nuclear capabilities with the development of higher yield warheads, hydrogen bombs and tactical nukes. This clearly tells us what they really think about having nukes. Sapator states it quite clearly and I agree fully:-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapator

Global power 1o1. We got it you don't, we set the rules.

---

I would feel a whole lot better if they just said it out loud instead of keeping up this "greater good" pretense which they should know that no sensible person would actually believe anyway.

Well, the US made a move. We'll see what happens next.

I'm curious which ordinance was dropped and how successful it was on Fordow. I hope there aren't many civilian casualties. Sound like it happened in the middle of the night there.

Wonder if this is going to hurt his chances of winning the Nobel Peace Prize? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

See, I get that rationale, but the thing is, I find it quite insulting that the powers that be expect us to accept this rationale while they kept improving their own nuclear capabilities with the development of higher yield warheads, hydrogen bombs and tactical nukes. This clearly tells us what they really think about having nukes. Sapator states it quite clearly and I agree fully:-


I would feel a whole lot better if they just said it out loud instead of keeping up this "greater good" pretense which they should know that no sensible person would actually believe anyway.

---

Yeah, that's certainly fair.

I do wonder how the last several decades would have gone had there not been nukes. Would we have gone to war with the USSR, and if so, over what? There wouldn't have been the Cuban missile crisis, so that wouldn't have been a cause for war, but without nukes, would one side or the other have been more provocative? It's all speculation, of course, and if one starts speculating, you can speculate about all kinds of different scenarios.

On the Nuclear non proliferation treaty, I think there's a bit of misrepresentation going on here.

The treaty has over 190 signatories and more have ratified it - there are only 5 recognised nuclear states (Israel isn't one of them... because Israel definitely does not have an illegal Nuclear Weapons Program - nope... definitely not... stop looking in that bunker). Meaning that the vast majority of signatories don't have a nuclear capability. That's because the treaty isn't about the nuclear states wanting to keep the other states down to maintain their advantage. It's that the whole world, including non nuclear states, recognise that any more nuclear states is a bad thing for all of us.

The thinking is: I would like to be able to bring a gun to a knife fight, but not if it means that you can bring a tank.

On whether it'd be a good thing if the existing nuclear nations were to give up their capabilities I'm going to give a full throated "Yes, that'd be great". I think it's probably unrealistic but history has shown that we'll tend to pull back when we talk rather than threaten. So there is hope for some level of disarmament and every bit's a win.

On the other hand, we seem to be forgetting how horrible a nuclear exchange can be...and we've never had one, since Japan had nothing to exchange.

There was a time when people recognized that nuclear war was the end of humanity. Now, there seems to be the feeling that maybe it wouldn't be quite so bad.

Quote:

---

The treaty has over 190 signatories and more have ratified it - there are only 5 recognised nuclear states (Israel isn't one of them... because Israel definitely does not have an illegal Nuclear Weapons Program - nope... definitely not... stop looking in that bunker).

---

There seems to be more than Israel to add to the list. When I searched I kept getting nine countries. I did keep seeing the term 5 recognized countries. I don't know the significance of the term recognized. Three haven't signed the NPT. But I don't put any faith in treaties anyway.

Quote:

---

There was a time when people recognized that nuclear war was the end of humanity. Now, there seems to be the feeling that maybe it wouldn't be quite so bad.

---

There was definitely a different vibe about nuclear war when I was younger. I don't remember the 50's but the 60's and 70's had a real fear of a nuclear war. I still do, sooner or later it seems inevitable.

Quote:

---

When I searched I kept getting nine countries

---

Yeah, my mistake. It was 5 when the treaty was originally created.

I think my point about the NPT still stands, though. It's not about protecting the privilege of a few powerful states, it's about recognising that any more joining that group is bad for all of us. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if there was a mechanism for removing that capability from those that have it but that's a different conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

That's because the treaty isn't about the nuclear states wanting to keep the other states down to maintain their advantage. It's that the whole world, including non nuclear states, recognise that any more nuclear states is a bad thing for all of us.

---

I'm sorry but I think this is not only wrong, it is dangerously naive. There is no way on God's green Earth that this isn't about maintaining an advantage. There is zero doubt in my mind that every state with the resources would develop nuclear weapons if it wouldn't run afoul of the US's ambition to maintain its primacy.

The possession of nuclear weapons isn't about how much damage you can do with them, it's about how much leverage you have in international negotiations. It's easy to tell a bully to piss off when you have nukes.

Holy hell!

Breaking news: Reports are just coming out that Iran has recently struck US bases in Qatar and some other places. Seems WW3 is inevitable. If these reports are true, I doubt the US is going to try to de-escalate this situation.

Neither Russia nor China has said anything, so far. If they sit it out, it isn't WW III, it's a regional spat, and it's mighty hard to say what's going on. Trump is claiming there's been a cease fire, but he's a massive liar and neither Iran nor Israel has confirmed his statement. I did hear that there had been attacks...and then nothing more. Trump is terrified of anybody fighting back against him. He might well downplay any retaliation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Neither Russia nor China has said anything, so far. If they sit it out, it isn't WW III, it's a regional spat, and it's mighty hard to say what's going on. Trump is claiming there's been a cease fire, but he's a massive liar and neither Iran nor Israel has confirmed his statement. I did hear that there had been attacks...and then nothing more. Trump is terrified of anybody fighting back against him. He might well downplay any retaliation.

---

I've seen a couple of comments from China and Russia. They have to at least act like they're supporting Iran.

There weren't any casualties from the attack on the airbase so not much going on there.

As for where it goes from here, hard to say, hard to even guess. Missile attacks, terrorist attacks?? Those have been in play for a long time. Negotiations, that would be nice but no recent history of them being effective.

Don't blame you for not believing Trump about the Iran-Israel, “complete and total ceasefire”

I just saw this,

Quote:

---

“As of now, there is NO ‘agreement’ on any ceasefire or cessation of military operations,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote in a post on X. “However, provided that the Israeli regime stops its illegal aggression against the Iranian people no later than 4 am Tehran time, we have no intention to continue our response afterwards.”

His message was posted at 4:16 a.m. Tehran time. Araghchi added: “The final decision on the cessation of our military operations will be made later.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Neither Russia nor China has said anything, so far. If they sit it out, it isn't WW III, it's a regional spat..

---

"Regional spats" can turn into a major war if no one is trying to de-escalate and negotiate. I'm taking the long view on this. First there was the invasion of Ukraine. Then Oct 7th happened. Then Israel started a genocide in Gaza. Then there was some stuff with Lebanon and Hezbollah. Then there was something with Yemin for a bit. Now we have this Iran-Israel thing. This doesn't seem to be getting better.

I'll have to double-check this but I believe this is the kind of thing that preceded WW2. Constant regional conflicts that kept on escalating until they engulfed the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

Holy hell!

Breaking news: Reports are just coming out that Iran has recently struck US bases in Qatar and some other places. Seems WW3 is inevitable. If these reports are true, I doubt the US is going to try to de-escalate this situation.

---

It was faux retaliation, preannounced in detail to give time to move assets out of harm's way and calculated to be stopped as safely as possible by defenses.

Basically, a sop for domestic consumption within Iran.

I believe there was a closely parallel event following the killing of Soleimani a few years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilettante

It was faux retaliation, preannounced in detail to give time to move assets out of harm's way and calculated to be stopped as safely as possible by defenses.

Basically, a sop for domestic consumption within Iran.

I believe there was a closely parallel event following the killing of Soleimani a few years ago.

---

I don't know if I should feel good or bad about that. On the one hand, it's nice to know that WW3 won't be starting quite yet but on the other hand, it really drives home the fact that the elites don't care how much anxiety they are causing because of these performances. They are playing a game that has real consequences for people.

The elites in this context are all the major players involved. Iranian, US and Israeli leadership and the business interests that is fueling all of this.

Quote:

---

This entire situation is absurd and what's worse is that the US ought not to be involved at all. The Israeli government have shown the lengths that they are willing to go to in order to rid entire geographic regions of their enemies. At what point does the United States say to the Israeli government "you have crossed the line, we cannot support you"? Because it looks like regardless of who is in power, Democrat or Republican, the Israeli government can do whatever they want and always rely on the US government to back them up, regardless of it hurts America's interest.

---

I feel it in my bones. There is something very deeply wrong here, something that none of us are seeing. I cannot for the life of me understand why the American political elite can look at the blatant crimes of Israel and NOT hold them accountable. No matter what administration is in power, Republican or Democrat, worship of Israel seems to be the one thing they have in common. I would really really love to know why. What is it about Israel that inspires such fanatical loyalty from the US political elite? What is it that we're missing here?

I really don't want to jump to the "Jews are running the world" bandwagon, but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to dismiss that theory outright.

Quote:

---

This entire situation is absurd and what's worse is that the US ought not to be involved at all.

---

Perhaps so. That would have been my preference.

But keep in mind that Trump's "involvement" has been far less so than previous administrations, for example Obama's.

For now there is a cease-fire. Something few were hoping for this soon... to the point that it was denied by the media even after it occurred.

I'm no fan of Israel, especially its leadership of the past few decades. But there is hardly anything clean about their regional opponents either.

I really tire of the entire mess, which was wholly created by the UK in the first place. We shouldn't be here at all, historically, but first came colonial exploitation of the region, then appeasement playing off factions against each other, leading to all but forced diaspora into Europe from east to west, nativist uprisings within Europe that led to the rise of first Communism then Fascism in opposition to that, more appeasement, flipping to belligerence, and on and on through 1947 and beyond right up until now.

But no, this isn't anything like 2003.

I'm not hearing anything about an occupation, further pacification, or any sort of regime change aside from what Iran chooses for itself.

Quote:

---

There is no way on God's green Earth that this isn't about maintaining an advantage.

---

If that were true, non nuclear states would not be signatories. It would make them Turkeys voting for Christmas. You can go looking for a conspiracy under every bed if you choose.

Quote:

---

I really don't want to jump to the "Jews are running the world" bandwagon

---

Then don't. It won't end well for you if you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

If that were true, non nuclear states would not be signatories

---

Of course they went along with it. What else are they going to do? Refuse and end up a pariah like Russia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Then don't. It won't end well for you if you do.

---

What is it with this threatening attitude? "It won't end well for you". What are you even talking about? You gonna come to my house and kill me or something?

Quote:

---

What else are they going to do?

---

Not be signatories to it:rolleyes:. If it were not to our benefit we could simply not sign it. A signature is an active endorsement and has been given by over 180 non nuclear states who do not wish to see nuclear weapons proliferated. They could have simply ignored it.

Quote:

---

What is it with this threatening attitude? "It won't end well for you". What are you even talking about? You gonna come to my house and kill me or something?

---

I suspect you're feigning your lack of understanding but I'll be clear: If you start espousing antisemitic tropes on this forum I will ban you. This includes but is not limited to Jews running the world. That's the only warning you'll get.

Quote:

---

"It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!"

---

To be fair to Dil, I think he covered this with :-
any sort of regime change aside from what Iran chooses for itself

I feel my own position is much closer to yours, though. For someone who campaigned as a peace president I'm seeing the exact opposite. Six months in and he's failed to stop any of the conflicts he was going to stop "on day one"; he's threatened Canada, Panama and Greenland with military action; and now he's engaged in direct military action against Iran which is highly likely to escalate into war (Bombing someone's infrastructure and then declaring that it's not an act of war is a particularly interesting piece of cognitive dissonance). He can claim that the goal isn't regime change but Netanyahu has been explicit that it is for Israel and Trump is going to struggle to distance himself from that.

Hopefully this dies down but I'm not confident. I'm seeing reports that Israel have carried on bombing though I'm not sure how reliable they are at this stage. If that is true then there is no ceasefire and the US looks like being drawn into a hot conflict. Worryingly, I think the UK might well follow if that happens.

Well I was naïve again, probably like Trump. I anticipated rumbling and aftershocks, but things have turned absurd again.

They just couldn't keep it in their pants and broke cease-fire almost immediately. I shouldn't be surprised, these aren't sane regimes on either hand.

Trump had some plain words for the two countries.

Quote:

---

They just couldn't keep it in their pants and broke cease-fire almost immediately.

---

Do you have a good source? I can find stuff about Trump saying that they've continued attacking each other but I can't find any actual sources that say it so I feel like it's unverified at this stage. While I'm not the biggest believer in Trump's word:rolleyes: I can't see a motivation for him saying this if it weren't true but I'd still like a better source.



Edit>Scratch that. Reuters is reporting it now which'll do for me. They're only reporting Israel attacking Iran but I don't doubt at all that it's going both ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Not be signatories to it:rolleyes:. If it were not to our benefit we could simply not sign it. A signature is an active endorsement and has been given by over 180 non nuclear states who do not wish to see nuclear weapons proliferated. They could have simply ignored it.

---

There's political capital in being a "team player". It really is about currying favor, political maneuvering, brown nosing etc. Its just moves on a chessboard. It has nothing to do with serving any greater good. Perhaps there are some true believers in the mix, but fundamentally, it's about power. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I suspect you're feigning your lack of understanding but I'll be clear: If you start espousing antisemitic tropes on this forum I will ban you. This includes but is not limited to Jews running the world. That's the only warning you'll get.

---

I have no idea what you're talking about. I have no idea what "anti-Semitic tropes" mean I have no idea what my offense was or why it was offensive. Am I allowed to criticize Israel? Was it my mention of Jews? I genuinely have no idea how to navigate this conversation in a way that would please you.

I'll be honest, as much as I comment on culture and geo-political matters, I don't have a firm grasp on the taboos of "white westerners" like yourself. I have some idea about the things you're not supposed to talk about regarding race, gender, and whatnot. But I have trouble grasping the nuance sometimes. Like where is the line drawn? It's easy for you to know because you grew up with these taboos, but this is a foreign concept to me. There is no such thing as a taboo topic where I'm from and I can only learn so much about yours from movies and the internet.

So apologies if I tripped on some deep taboo that offended you. It's not my intent to inflame anyone. I was just sharing my thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

"Regional spats" can turn into a major war if no one is trying to de-escalate and negotiate. I'm taking the long view on this. First there was the invasion of Ukraine. Then Oct 7th happened. Then Israel started a genocide in Gaza. Then there was some stuff with Lebanon and Hezbollah. Then there was something with Yemin for a bit. Now we have this Iran-Israel thing. This doesn't seem to be getting better.

I'll have to double-check this but I believe this is the kind of thing that preceded WW2. Constant regional conflicts that kept on escalating until they engulfed the world.

---

Fair enough. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it certainly has in the past.

Quote:

---

Am I allowed to criticize Israel?

---

Yes. I'd say it's better if you specify the Israeli state but I also think that "Israel" is a valid shorthand.

Quote:

---

Was it my mention of Jews?

---

Not in isolation, it was the conjunction of Jews and running the world. I recommend that you (and everyone else who's likely to sail up to the line) read the Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition for antisemitism. It is the definition that is used by most of the worlds governments. In particular:-
"Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions."

and

"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel"

Note, the definition is actually quite liberal in what it will allow. It doesn't oppose the criticism of Israel, or even the criticism of Jews. It does oppose the dehumanisation of Jews, the denial of their equal rights and the equation of "All Jews" with Israel.

Quote:

---

So apologies if I tripped on some deep taboo that offended you.

---

It's not offending me that would be the problem.

Quote:

---

I have trouble grasping the nuance sometimes

---

That's why we give warnings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

I feel it in my bones. There is something very deeply wrong here, something that none of us are seeing. I cannot for the life of me understand why the American political elite can look at the blatant crimes of Israel and NOT hold them accountable. No matter what administration is in power, Republican or Democrat, worship of Israel seems to be the one thing they have in common. I would really really love to know why. What is it about Israel that inspires such fanatical loyalty from the US political elite? What is it that we're missing here?

I really don't want to jump to the "Jews are running the world" bandwagon, but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to dismiss that theory outright.

---

It doesn't take that. One principle of fundamentalist Christianity is that Israel must exist for the second coming to happen. Therefore, we have the odd situation that evangelicals in the US can be both anti-Semitic in person, yet strongly advocate for Israel. Whether they ARE anti-Semitic is up to them. Some are, some aren't. My point is that they support the rise of Israel regardless of their personal views on Judaism.

This means that the Israel lobby has a strange coalition of bedfellows in the US. Both left, right, and religious right, will all support Israel. They might all have different reasons, even radically different reasons, but the end result is the same. I can think of no foreign entity that gets similarly diverse, even perverse, support.

By the way, I have that "Israel must exist" bit somewhat wrong, but I don't know the exact requirements they are expecting. It may have to do with Jerusalem, or Israel, or rebuilding something, or some other thing similar to that.

Quote:

---

It doesn't take that. One principle of fundamentalist Christianity is that Israel must exist for the second coming to happen. Therefore, we have the odd situation that evangelicals in the US can be both anti-Semitic in person, yet strongly advocate for Israel. Whether they ARE anti-Semitic is up to them. Some are, some aren't. My point is that they support the rise of Israel regardless of their personal views on Judaism.

This means that the Israel lobby has a strange coalition of bedfellows in the US. Both left, right, and religious right, will all support Israel. They might all have different reasons, even radically different reasons, but the end result is the same. I can think of no foreign entity that gets similarly diverse, even perverse, support.

---

I think there's also a large element of simple inertia. Israel's always been an ally, Iran's always been an enemy. It'd take some pretty tectonic shifts to reverse that. International relations tend to be sticky. Although Trump has shown more of a willingness to upend them than any President I can think of.

I think we're seeing some techtonic shifts. I feel that Israel has done serious damage to their own reputation within the US, especially within Jewish groups.

Meanwhile, I also feel like the Iranian regime is becoming a crust on the top of, and increasingly separate from, a society that doesn't really want them. If they fell, it would be a long time before anybody really trusted whatever replaced them, but it could happen, eventually. They're still a large country with some substantial resources, though, so people might welcome a change.

From the reactions and coverage by most of the media, the proper term for them may be collaborators.

Quote:

---

It doesn't take that. One principle of fundamentalist Christianity is that Israel must exist for the second coming to happen.

---

I remember this reason being given before in the Israel thread, I think by FD. It never felt to me like a major reason for our support. It's not something that's preached in churches that I've went to.

Quote:

---

This means that the Israel lobby has a strange coalition of bedfellows in the US. Both left, right, and religious right, will all support Israel. They might all have different reasons, even radically different reasons, but the end result is the same. I can think of no foreign entity that gets similarly diverse, even perverse, support.

---

This I agree with. They do have an extremely large amount of political power, for such a small minority. I'd say they developed a lot of this power as a means to overcome the abusive discrimination they had to deal with when they immigrated here.

I've said this before, it's not a subject that gets talked about much in the parts of Ca. where I've lived. So I might have an invalid view of the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wes4dbt

I remember this reason being given before in the Israel thread, I think by FD. It never felt to me like a major reason for our support. It's not something that's preached in churches that I've went to.

---

I've never thought you'd have gone to the kind of church that preached that. I heard it from a report on why evangelicals support Israel, which I heard several years ago, and may have gotten a bit wrong.