• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

Global Events The Middle East - Palestine, Israel, and Iran


I keep on referencing it so I feel it's better to provide a link to the Arms Control Podcast

BLers in the US may already be familiar with Dr. Jeffery Lewis and maybe even Aaron Stein.

But note the date on the podcast. They predicted more or less exactly what has happened.

Experts are saying Iran's 'breakout time' has been put back a few months, not the 'decades' that Don claims.

They noted that Israel had destroyed the power supplies to the cascades, not the cascades themselves. Yes, the US used six GBU-57 bunker busters are Fordo and their placement DOES suggest they were going for two specific targets.

But what I also noted is that Iran leads the world in re-enforced concrete as witnessed by Ukrainian launched ATACAMs punching neat holed into Russian revetments, but failing to destroy them so it was never clear how much damage had actully been caused.

For a decade there has been a constant catch-up going on with the US developing ever newer bunker busters and Iran simply adding another metre or two of their latest concrete to the interiors of their underground bunkers.

So I think it more reasonable to suggest (whatever your position on the issue) that there is no proof of the strikes having destroyed Irans cascades and even if they destroyed the lot - 60% enriched uranium is still 'weapon usable'. You would need a lot more and the yield woult be much lower. But if Iran tested even a 1Kt device, what happens then?

BTW as others have said and the podcast underlines. The agreement Trump wanted Iran to sign wasn't as strict as Israel wanted it to be. As Arron noted, Iran could have signed whatever bits of peper were pushed in front of them... then have simply build a test device as soon as possible.

Regime change sounds great. I think most people would agree that the current Iranian authoritatian theocracy IS a major issue, but who could replace it who would be better? I keep saying that the oppoistion coallition was destroyed back in 2023 and while a few opposition politicians are still free, they are scattered across the world and almost no Iranians would know who they are.

So the armed forces represent just about the only group in a position to take over but military dictatorships do not have a great record and I can't help thinking that a lot of senior military staff were killed in the decapitation strike so will whoever repaces them think themselves safe if Iran does not have it's own nuclear option.

In cases such as this, I recommend people find media sources from across the globe. At the very least choose two from every continent. People who are not aligned with either side are more likely to give a balanced view and even go for sources you DON'T trust. I know the South China Morning post is a Beijing mouthpiece but strangely, they will often cite US sources (which can be checked) that while less spectacular, may also be closer to the truth.

With all disinformation, there has to be at least a few truths. I was interested to learn that drone debris in Ukraine suggests that Russia was using some more modern Iranian drones. It's hardly headline grabbing but we often forget that Iran has been supplying drones to Russia and we don't know what Russia is giving Iran in return. I think it unlikely that Russia could involve itself with events in Iran.

What nobody is asking is if Russia has a design for a fission weapon that will allow the use of 60% enriched uranium. Because while the US really cracked the optimal ways to enrich uranium, The Soviet Union was a long way behind so a design that uses lower enriched uranium may well have been a reasonable goal for them in the 50s and 60s.

In short - it's very complex.

But US troops in Iran? I'm pretty sure it's going to happen.
 
Y’all don’t get local or home grown eggs? My mother in law gives us eggs out the ass and chickens aren’t that hard to raise. Only reason we don’t have chickens is cause our plot is too small currently.
 
Cream Gravy? said:
Y’all don’t get local or home grown eggs? My mother in law gives us eggs out the ass and chickens aren’t that hard to raise. Only reason we don’t have chickens is cause our plot is too small currently
Click to expand...
I live in the city - there's no where to raise chickens around here. If we ever move to an area with more outdoor space though, my wife wants to raise chickens. I'd love to have a couple of goats myself.
 

Tesco - A dozen eggs for £3.25

Was it the H5N1 avian influenza virus that saw egg prices in the US spike?

Now I don't know much about this but apparently the UK government bought something like 5 million doses of the H5N1 vaccine for human use in 2023 in case we were witness to yet another zoonotic disease jumping to man.

I really have no idea what if anything the US did.

Apparently as of 14th Februrary 2025 the US did approve a human vaccine but I don't know if they ever actually ordered the vaccine. So did the UK waste it's money. Well the Lancet had an interesting article on how 5HN1 potentially posed a risk to humans as far back as 2023 having first been detected in Israel in 2001. So is it better to have something and not need it than to need something ant not have it?

I'm not so interested in the price of eggs pe se, only that it does appear that the current US government appears fare less risk-adverse or, possibly, questions the science. But when you look at the dates... it's not like we didn't get a lot of warning.

It's still possible that it could infect man as the US varient saw significant genetic changes. So we aren't out of the woods yet.
 
FYI I just checked and the original 'Little Boy' bomn used 80% enriched uranium i.e. 80% of it was the fissile 235U.

Apparenly modern designs would allow 20% enriched uranium to be used. Obviously they are keen to say it's far less efficient but if there are several hundreds of 60% enriched uranium somewhere in Iran - that's a problem. They easily have enough and I think we could all find a simplified diagram of how Fat Boy worked.

At the end of the day, the only way to stop Iran would be US boots on the ground.
 

Iran still has it's stockpile of 60% enriched 'weapons usable' uranium according the US VEEP.

I don't WANT to be right about this... but where now? It would take 'boots on the ground' to find it.

As for regime change. Well I've pointed out that all of the Iranian opposition politicians living outside of Iran are unknown to 99% of the Iranian people so I cannot see that working.


BUT they are all aware that before Iran became an authoritarian theocracy, it was a monarchy. But it's worth noting that both the Shah and the son of the Shah were so dispised by the Iranian people that the monarchy was overthrown. So Older Iranians will remember that rule will not do so with any fondness and of course youner Iranians will have been taught how awful the monarchy was.

I have to say that the Crown Prince MAY be the best option for the US... but that assumes that the Iranian military would accept him. It would end up as a puppet government and guess what - you would still need boots on the ground.
 
Iran should have simply signed whatever pieces of paper the US put in front of them and just gone ahead and tested.

I'm not taking Iran's side - I'm just saying if they had done so, I don't think the US would have been keen to help. Israel may well still have launched the attacks, but it seems regardless of the US supplying six GBU-57s, it's only set Iran back by a few months.

If the US wants to prevent Iran conducting a test in the next few months, they will have to have boots on the ground.
 
4DQSAR said:
Iran should have simply signed whatever pieces of paper the US put in front of them and just gone ahead and tested.

I'm not taking Iran's side - I'm just saying if they had done so, I don't think the US would have been keen to help. Israel may well still have launched the attacks, but it seems regardless of the US supplying six GBU-57s, it's only set Iran back by a few months.

If the US wants to prevent Iran conducting a test in the next few months, they will have to have boots on the ground.
Click to expand...
but they DID

the US, trump particularly, is the one who threw all that out the window

yet even after breaking the agreement Iran still complied with the terms
 
someguyontheinternet said:
The US, trump particularly, is the one who threw all that out the window
Click to expand...

To be exact, he threw out an agreement made under the Obama administration.

Then he attempted to introduce HIS OWN agreement.

The problem was that essentially Iran were being asked to agree not to refine any more uranium without any recipocal benefits. Sanctions would not have been lifted. So it was designed to be unacceptable.

That's why I pointed out that Iran could have signed Trump's deal and STILL produced a nuclear weapon. Israel was, apparently, not in agreement with the US on the subject of the latter agreement and in that podcast they ask if Israel would have attacked Iran even if they had signed a deal with the US. I suggest that they would have.

But surely it can be no surprise that the hundreds of kilograms of nuclear usable uranium would have been divided into smaller lots (possibly 1 lot being enough for one weapon) and then all of those lots being hidden in extremely remote parts of Iran.

That's why I keep saying the only way the US can prevent Iran from performing a test is an invasion. What's more, an invasion sooner rather than later. Especially since Iran has the capability to attack US assets in the region. Qarar for example. But while one side of the Persian Gulf has at least a dozen US bases, the other side of the Persian Gulf is, well, Persia AKA Iran.
 
Last edited:
4DQSAR said:
If the US wants to prevent Iran conducting a test in the next few months, they will have to have boots on the ground.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But boots on the ground in Iran is a dangerous game. Iran isn't Irak or Syria, with 20 something millions people foundly divided by religious and ethnics matter. Iran is a very old nation with 90 millions, most of them young. It's also very big (bigger than Spain+France+Germany) and it's full of mountains and deserts. Over 90% of its population is ethnically persian and shia. It's a proud and strongly united nation.
We saw what happened in Afghanistan, where the US rival were taliban in sandals with fake Kalashnikovs and 50 years old soviet motorcycles, with some tea, opium and rice as equipment.
Iran isn't like that, and if Trump and the zionists want their boots on the ground, then they are in for something as hard as Vietnam or Korea, if not worse
 
Señor Moreno said:
Agreed. But boots on the ground in Iran is a dangerous game.
Click to expand...

Indeed - but the US does have an unenviable history of invading nations, being forced to try to maintain control for decades until finally the US public ask 'what were our politicians thinking of?'

I'm not saying what I WANT to happen, I'm posting on what every indictors suggests WILL be the outcome.
 
4DQSAR said:
Indeed - but the US does have an unenviable history of invading nations, being forced to try to maintain control for decades until finally the US public ask 'what were our politicians thinking of?'

I'm not saying what I WANT to happen, I'm posting on what every indictors suggests WILL be the outcome.
Click to expand...
I actually think Trump would be risk-averse to invading anybody unless he could persuade himself that it would be a cake walk. He doesn't want to be a "loser", which is the worst thing in the world to him. That's why bombing the nuclear sites after letting the Israelis destroy the air defenses was perfect for him: minimal risk, maximum bragging rights. Even if his claims of destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities turns indeed to be BS.
 
deficiT said:
Israel is killing Iranian scientists with car bombs and shit.

I feel like those actions are terroristic in nature, and not an actual act of military warfare.

I feel like it's clear that Israel is the aggressor here. It's a shame the US government is lending support to them and playing into this conflict, but, that's how they make money, so that's how it goes.
Click to expand...

Israel feels that it can do anything it wants and they can fuck right off. They're the REAL terrorists. God forbid anyone dares to question their actions. They either shriek, "You're antisemitic!" or bring up the Holocaust...over and over and over again.

It's a fucking shame the US supports them. Without that support, Israel would be completely annihilated by their enemies. 👍
 
Illyria99 said:
. God forbid anyone dares to question their actions. They either shriek, "You're antisemitic!" or bring up the Holocaust...over and over and over again.
Click to expand...

But the thing is that they are the most antisemitic people on the world. The palestinians that are dying are arabic and arabs are semitic, and so are many ethiopians. Israel is killing semitics, is there anything more antisemitic?
They want the world to think that semitic, jew and zionist all mean the same, but it doesn't work like that. There are other semitic people but the jews and, thanks God, there are many jews that are against the zionists and their abuses
 
It's interesting that just a couple of years ago Labour MPs were being suspened for anti-Israeli sentiment.

Now Labour MPs who speak out against the genocide in Gaza are being denied entry or are actually being detained and/or thrown out by the Isreali government.

How certain people were able to assert 'Anti-Israel = Antisemitic' is something we should be investigating in DETAIL. It looks to me more like certain senior members of the Labour party were in fact being influenced in a manner that may actually constitute criminal acts... so an absolute volteface is underway but you can bet that they will brush over the traces.
 
yea its pretty disgusting that they use the holocaust as an excuse to literally commit another ethnic cleansing and genocide

the idea that Zionism is good for all Jewish people is something that drives antisemitism even further

when the Israeli government tells the world that the world hates Jews, that it must create a Jewish ethnostate and conduct this ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the west bank. people see this, coming from many different perspectives and biases. many of them will the associate the idea of a need for Israel to do these terrible things and associate them with Jews

that is the real danger, the idea that Jewish people all need and want the actions of Israel

which is completely absurd, there are so many Jewish people out there with so many perspectives and opinions and there are many antizionist Jews. on top of this, there are more Zionist Christians than Zionist Jews

the fact that the Israeli government paints all Jews with this broad brush results in what most overgeneralization does. hatred, xenophobia, and religious bigotry. antisemitism
 
Last edited:
So what do we all think of Israel deciding to denote several Iranian banks - including their central bank - as terrorist organisations?

Personally I think it’s a dangerous step well across the lines of legitimate warfare that could set a dangerous precedent.

What if, by some miracle, the British government decided not to intervene on the Israeli side? They could simply decide the Bank of England was a terrorist organisation and freeze our economy?

Seems ridiculous… much as this new approach from the Israeli Bureau of Economic Warfare seems to be a helluva stretch…

And if they truly felt this was a valid weapon in their arsenal, why sling a boatload of missiles over the border first?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top