Great article overall, but one quibble: the idea that Ukraine could have ‘kept the Russian nukes’ to maintain balance of power against a future Putin is a common fallacy…it’s a myth that has grown larger since 2022 and has even been perpetuated by people like Zelenskyy.
Jeffrey Lewis did a good job explaining this just before the start of the Russia/Ukraine war in an Arms Control Wonk pod.
In short, USSR nuclear forces deployed in Ukraine (& Belarus & Khazakstan) were owned, controlled, and maintained - not by some mixed pan-Soviet teams - but by Russian units led Russian generals who were loyal to Moscow.
It is true that newly independent Ukraine used *physical* possession of Russian nukes to extract economic concessions in the early 1990’s, but it was posturing. They had few options - first, they weren’t legal owners, which sounds like an academic point, but it really isn’t…keeping the weapons would have led to an international crisis. But more important there was no realistic path for Ukrainian military to keep them, turn them around and use them as a deterrent.
Modern nuclear weapons are not hand grenades…they are complex and delicately balanced systems that have to be cared for and fed by teams of experts. They can only be put on target and detonated by way of complex delivery systems using purpose-built command & control systems…and only with the permission of people who own the proverbial launch codes…*none* of whom were in Kiev (Kyiv?) after the breakup of the USSR.
Ukraine did not independently possess the technology to make use of them in the same way that Turkey does not possess that ability should US personnel suddenly abandon Inserlik. (Another analogy: If someone parked a loaded F-35 in your driveway and tossed the keys in your mailbox, there’s no chance you could prep it, start it, take off, and bomb the local shopping mall.)
Could you cite Lewis' work? I'd be interested to listen, mostly because it contradicts the papers I've read on the subject.
My understanding:
It's true Ukraine was not the legal owner of the nuclear weapons it possessed, but neither was Russia. These assets, like many others, were formally legally owned by the Commonwealth of Independent States.
I'm skeptical of the idea that all nuclear weapons were in possession of units commanded by Russian officers. I can't challenge it without a lot more digging.
"keeping the weapons would have led to an international crisis" is absolutely true, and it has nothing to do with who was the legal owner of the weapons. Both Russia and the US didn't want Ukraine to have nuclear weapons. And at the time of the dissolution, Ukraine needed money from the US (just like Russia did). So it had external motivation to get rid of the weapons. This was coupled with the fact that most Ukrainians didn't want Ukraine to have nuclear weapons... due to (among other things) the Chernobyl disaster, which happened just a few years before.
"They can only be put on target and detonated by way of complex delivery systems using purpose-built command & control systems…and only with the permission of people who own the proverbial launch codes...."
This is true... for the large thermonuclear strategic weapons. This is substantially less true for the smaller tactical weapons, of which there were hundreds in Ukraine's possession. The systems designed to prevent the use of these weapons (without the go-ahead from Moscow) were much weaker, less reliable, and in some cases practically useless:
This article challenges (or at least appears to challenge) some of your other claims as well.
It was possible for Ukraine to maintain a small nuclear deterrent. It was also economic suicide and (worse yet) unpopular for Ukraine to maintain a small nuclear deterrent... so there was never much debate within Ukraine's political class about whether to keep nukes. The debate was over what to get in exchange for them... some wanted to hold out for something close to NATO Article V to protect Ukraine from Russia. Clinton managed to convince Kravchuk that this wasn't necessary, and the result was the latter's signing of Ukraine's Budapest Memorandum.
Were any of the technicians Ukrainian? I know 0 of the details of warhead control systems, but as I understand it there's the fissile core, the explosive lens around it and a precisely timed electrical signal to set off the explosives uniformly. I'd guess the control layer is physically separate from those, because I can't imagine how you can make the explosive itself smart.
The explosives and the little ball of big kaboom themselves don't have permission links or locks, it's almost certain that the control layer prevents unauthorized issuance of the go signal. Thus (as I understand it) if you have technicians who can disassemble that without destroying it and replace the triggering system with one they/their nation has control of they have a perfectly good (or bad) big boom thing. There's more to it of course, such as the difficult parts becoming unreliable over time due, but can you be confident a 20 yr old Russian H-bomb won't go boom?
Delivering it precisely to a target is another matter, but for deterrence getting it to somewhere within a major city is probably enough. Let hope that never gets tested.
What do you think is Israel’s theory of victory? Because while the attack seems to play out very well for them, they certainly went „all in“. Future peace with Iran will be hard and the gain Iran expects from the bomb also went up.
Unless they are very sure this delays the bomb significantly (or leads to regime change), this adds a lot of risk to have a hot conflict with a (soon) nuclear armed country.
It's gotta be the latter right? The former is an unlimited objective war and there's no way in hell isreal can achieve that when they can't even achieve this against Gaza a far inferior foe.
The other answer might be "get the united states to agree to some security agreement"
Gaza is a disaster, for Israel, Netanyahu, IDF. A quagmire. No end in sight. Except genocide.
People are generally less good, less honest, less truthful than they present themselves, even to themselves.
Most of the Middle East feel sorrow for Palestinians, but also secretly enjoy observing Israelis commit a genocide. Most of the West, too. Like Germans.
It can happen to the best of us.
Iran war is a distraction, in hope of running away from Gaza, reclaiming the position of eternal victim, and transferring the blame for genocidal intentions on Iran.
But the world is looking at destruction in Israel, and cannot but compare with images from Gaza. It is not the same.
Netanyahu fighting for political survival as usual? He has to unite the Israeli electorate against external threats so they forget about the fact that he's a corrupt prick.
It's not clear, not an easy yes or no. Possibly multiple staked strikes could penetrate deeper. Additionally, the US could target power systems, air intakes, and support infrastructure to render the facility inoperable. If I have to guess, the US could get it done if it really wanted to.
I'm an American, so I'll say "Pzz us off enough, and we'll do stuff you can't imagine."
Oddly enough, D.C. doesn't seem to mind a nation that considers the straight path to their Heaven to be death while obliterating the Great Satan (the USA) having nuclear warheads and multiple delivery channels. They also don't do much about riots that seem to go off on cue.
So I'm forced to agree that although we can -with ease- we won't.
You claim that this attack was done contra the US's wishes. Israeli journalist Nadav Eyal claims that this attack would only have been done with the explicit agreement, and even cooperation, of the US [0]. Do you find these claims non-credible? It seems that if they are correct, it would significantly increase the likelihood of American cooperation in attacking Fordow.
It does seem like approval is not a binary and the US has some level of approval but not a high level. Multiple reports indicated [Trump wanted Israel to hold off](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-june-12-2025/), with his envoy Witkoff warning senators that Israeli strikes could trigger a "mass casualty event." Also why would you set up negotiations for Sunday and then deliberately sabotage them? If anything, the US approved attack would've come next week after no progress.
Surprising Iran seems to have had a lot to do with the appearance of disagreement between Israel and the U.S. And the element of surprise here seems to have been necessary and very effective indeed. Trump’s comments and demeanor in the last few days also seem to indicate a level of amusement with the whole situation - “Heads up? They didn’t give us a heads up, we knew all about it” - and joking about how Iran should return to the negotiating table even though certain leaders will never return.
> What do you think would happen if Israel used nuclear weapons on Iran as a last resort and how likely is that scenario?
I think this would be met with very wide international condemnation. As such, I think it's quite unlikely. It would be a very grave escalation and a violation of very strong international norms.
The greater paradox is why is the Iranian goverment so invested in confrontation with Israel, at a high cost for Iran. There are no inherent conflicts between the 2 countries, and they were aligned in the Shah's time. Is it pure religious ideology? A way to legimitize the regime and project force all over the Middle East?
Think about it strategically: Iran's government faces persistent protests and deep unpopularity over economic conditions and political freedom. By positioning itself as the vanguard of Palestinian resistance and the defender of Jerusalem's Muslim holy sites, the regime claims a mantle of Islamic leadership that can resonate beyond Iran's borders. It's classic authoritarian playbook - external enemies justify internal repression.
This also matters for Iran's "axis of resistance" (Hamas, Hezbollah, militias in Iraq, etc.) Without the anti-Israel framework, what justification would Iran have for its tentacles across the region? The regime has brilliantly (if cynically) transformed a manufactured ideological conflict into real strategic assets.
Peter, destruction of Israel was a key plank of the Islamic revolution from its founding. When they keep saying it and acting on it and state they are willing to accept 20 million dead to accomplish it, maybe you should believe the Mullahs…
Yes but Iran is paying a high price for it, at least economically. I guess as long as the population can be kept in its place this is not critical to the regime.
Read something about Shia, or think about Ireland and Irish as opposed to Scotts and Scotland in relation to Britain and British.. Shia like Irish, belong to the group that has been treated extremely unfairly in the past and their current politics is, and will be for some time coloured by this natural opposition to might is right approach.
In historical, psychological sense Shia are losers, like Irish are losers, but are proud of their suffering, of their defeat.
Sunnis, British, Americans, are different, they remember their victories and tend to forget their defeats, as quickly as possible.
This is definitely not the only characteristic of Shia, but is a significant undercurrent in politics, culture.
Manipulation comes on top of this deep feeling that Palestinians are being treated unjustly by Israelis.
Because it's existential for Iran, the people and country, not just the government, to not become a failed state or a client state to be stripped from its resources, like several others in the area targetted by Israel and US.
Its people had mass revolt and overthrew the guy appointed to oversee the wholesale sell-out of its resources and make it a client state assisting their other outpost in the area go about its settler expansion. You know, the puppet installed there after the west toppled their legitimate leader.
> Yup. And we all know what happened to those naive leftists - by the thousands- after the Revolution.
The had a power play with the existing guys for the next day, and lost it. Like it happens in almost all revolutions when different ideas about what's to be done next collide. They weren't the majority to begin with.
> 80% of Iranians despise their despotic fanatical regime
“From Iran's perspective, the nuclear program isn't about annihilation fantasies.” Might be more accurate to say that this is a minority viewpoint. Pretty sure there’re quite a few “annihilation fantasies” within Iran.
As soon as we dumped the enrichment vs. sanctions treaty and its verification protocols, it was inevitable that Iran would restart enrichment and also that Israel would stop them using any means. No one should be surprised.
Yeah I think "just let Israel do it" is a viable US strategy but with a lot of potential to spiral out of control and really annoy US interests (e.g., Straight of Hormuz closure).
Fascinating read. I have a probably stupid question: even if Israel can't bomb Fordow, can't it use its missiles to block access to the Fordow entrances, thereby rendering it inoperable? I assume there are multiple entry points, but can't Israel just keep bombing anything that even vaguely might be an entrance?
This isn't stupid IMO - it's actually smart tactics, and has been used in other conflicts. The key operational issues I see is that Fordow has many entrances that need to be hit repeatedly, including possibly secret ones that may be hard to find.
Moreover, Iran has extensive tunneling expertise and could potentially clear blocked entrances relatively quickly with heavy equipment already on site.
Can we offer the Iranian leadership amnesty somewhere? A life of luxury in Trump Tower Pyongyang, funded by the American taxpayer? Seems a lot cheaper than fighting a war. I'm normally not a Trump fan, but this seems like the sort of decorum-violating pragmatism he might go for.
Bari Weiss asked Naftali Bennett this question during a live interview late Thursday night (while the initial attack in Iran was underway). It intrigued me that Naftali basically answered “no comment”, and quickly. Israeli control of airspace over Fordnow would greatly multiply the effectiveness of a small IDF ground force attempting to take direct control of the nuclear facility for the several days it might take to render it essentially unusable for a few years.
‘Iran’s naked vulnerability — their air defenses are rubble’. 🤔 Doesn’t seem like that today, does it? Maybe hold off a bit on the BDA and don’t reflexively accept Israeli and US wishful thinking narratives? Just sayin……. How about this for a scenario……….. Israel keeps striking & gets its airforce gradually attrited, Iran keeps up the daily ballistic missile & drone bombardment on Israel, the U.S. remains too frit to put its planes into the fray, because it can’t afford the inevitable Iranian response in Hormuz or on its regional bases, the whole thing peters out inconclusively after a few weeks. Both sides claim victory, but which state has the better prospects going forward?
You need to read more widely. Your first premise is that Israel’s previous attack was hugely successful at degrading air defenses. When it was widely acknowledged that no aircraft penetrated Iran air space.
Your second is that irans oct 1 retaliation was unsuccessful. When even the New York Times acknowledged that nevatim air base was hit 18 times. The reason no one died was because Iran telegraphed the attack and did not aim at targets with people in them.
For those of us not feeding off the propaganda it was no surprise to see hypersonic missiles rain down on Israel last night.
Suggest you analyse the impact of emigration from Israel over the next year. Half of Israelis have dual passports
Fun read with compelling scenarios. #3 represents my ideal outcome. The key difference: Trump isn’t a fake “compassionate” conservative, and Hegseth appears to be the strongest military leader we’ve had in my lifetime.
This combination could devastate Iran’s leadership and military capabilities without the self-defeating prioritization of Iranian civilian lives over US military personnel that hampered previous conflicts. I’m not endorsing either individual politically, but I expect far better strategic outcomes than we saw in Iraq.
America has a bias towards using force. It hasn't worked out well for us. Maybe the solution is... even more force!!!
Seriously, I just can't imagine what you were thinking in writing this comment. The issue in Iraq was not the conventional war, it was the insurgency after the conventional war ended. The more civilian casualties you create, the less popular you become and the greater the insurgency.
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Have their been German, Austrian, or Japanese insurgency after WW2? We made sure there was no hope in bothering with an insurgency. More civilian casualties does not always equal strong insurgency.
I'd agree that America has used its force needlessly against non-enemies. But my point is that when we engage with actual enemies, it needs to be devastating.
I'm not sure the analogy is valid. I'd argue that cultural differences are playing a role. Anyways, Americans won't want to fight a war that generates a lot of civilian casualties. It'll be another Vietnam.
I suppose so. I certainly am not suggesting he is the best, the most principled, the most moral, or the most intelligent. But he does seem to be the type that would avenge an innocent US soldier's death more than others. Akin to the boyfriend that punches anyone that bumps into his girlfriend at a crowded bar.
Presumably Israel is highly motivated to strike Fordow, what do you think are the odds that either
1) Israel has prepared a specific delivery system for the type of munitions that could target Fordow
2) Israel has focused intelligence efforts on alternative approaches for shutting down Fordow
You write that "Mossad could pull off something truly unexpected," but I think that the unexpected is in many ways the expected. Like, I don't ascribe to Mossad some sort of god-like status, but it appears that their intelligence is routinely at the capabilities required to pull off something like they have over the last couple years.
Moreover, if they were already successful in this in the first round of strikes, we probably would currently have no idea or be able to verify this.
Articles like this are completely at the whim of whether Israel or Iran decides to publicly disclose the precise damage, which it seems like it could very plausibly be in the strategic interest of neither to do:
Mossad is highly skilled but not literally magical, and the defenses of Fordow are real. We'll learn more soon but I think there's good reason to think this would be very hard, even for Mossad.
This is what I don't get: how could it be so hard for Israel to entomb Fordow by dropping dozens of kilotonnes of explosive on every entrance and air duct?
They have to know where those entrances and air ducts are. Some could be many miles away. I'm sure most are well hidden and their locations tightly guarded secrets.
I could even imagine Fordow having a system to recycle air, allowing it to operate in total isolation until the Iranians dig a new tunnel to it. (I'm not saying it does have that capability, just that it's technically conceivable.)
I'm sure these things are secret, but it seems like they could pretty much have agents walk all over the place to find them, even if imagery didn't work. Or even just obliterate every potential site?
I would love to know more about this - maybe it is what they are doing! Or maybe there is a massive tunnel that ends up in a major town (but then they could surely obliterate the tunnel??) ... it just seems too obvious for me to not be missing something, and I'd like to know what
Great article overall, but one quibble: the idea that Ukraine could have ‘kept the Russian nukes’ to maintain balance of power against a future Putin is a common fallacy…it’s a myth that has grown larger since 2022 and has even been perpetuated by people like Zelenskyy.
Jeffrey Lewis did a good job explaining this just before the start of the Russia/Ukraine war in an Arms Control Wonk pod.
In short, USSR nuclear forces deployed in Ukraine (& Belarus & Khazakstan) were owned, controlled, and maintained - not by some mixed pan-Soviet teams - but by Russian units led Russian generals who were loyal to Moscow.
It is true that newly independent Ukraine used *physical* possession of Russian nukes to extract economic concessions in the early 1990’s, but it was posturing. They had few options - first, they weren’t legal owners, which sounds like an academic point, but it really isn’t…keeping the weapons would have led to an international crisis. But more important there was no realistic path for Ukrainian military to keep them, turn them around and use them as a deterrent.
Modern nuclear weapons are not hand grenades…they are complex and delicately balanced systems that have to be cared for and fed by teams of experts. They can only be put on target and detonated by way of complex delivery systems using purpose-built command & control systems…and only with the permission of people who own the proverbial launch codes…*none* of whom were in Kiev (Kyiv?) after the breakup of the USSR.
Ukraine did not independently possess the technology to make use of them in the same way that Turkey does not possess that ability should US personnel suddenly abandon Inserlik. (Another analogy: If someone parked a loaded F-35 in your driveway and tossed the keys in your mailbox, there’s no chance you could prep it, start it, take off, and bomb the local shopping mall.)
Yeah these are really good points - thanks.
Could you cite Lewis' work? I'd be interested to listen, mostly because it contradicts the papers I've read on the subject.
My understanding:
It's true Ukraine was not the legal owner of the nuclear weapons it possessed, but neither was Russia. These assets, like many others, were formally legally owned by the Commonwealth of Independent States.
I'm skeptical of the idea that all nuclear weapons were in possession of units commanded by Russian officers. I can't challenge it without a lot more digging.
"keeping the weapons would have led to an international crisis" is absolutely true, and it has nothing to do with who was the legal owner of the weapons. Both Russia and the US didn't want Ukraine to have nuclear weapons. And at the time of the dissolution, Ukraine needed money from the US (just like Russia did). So it had external motivation to get rid of the weapons. This was coupled with the fact that most Ukrainians didn't want Ukraine to have nuclear weapons... due to (among other things) the Chernobyl disaster, which happened just a few years before.
"They can only be put on target and detonated by way of complex delivery systems using purpose-built command & control systems…and only with the permission of people who own the proverbial launch codes...."
This is true... for the large thermonuclear strategic weapons. This is substantially less true for the smaller tactical weapons, of which there were hundreds in Ukraine's possession. The systems designed to prevent the use of these weapons (without the go-ahead from Moscow) were much weaker, less reliable, and in some cases practically useless:
https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/npr/pikaye13.pdf
This article challenges (or at least appears to challenge) some of your other claims as well.
It was possible for Ukraine to maintain a small nuclear deterrent. It was also economic suicide and (worse yet) unpopular for Ukraine to maintain a small nuclear deterrent... so there was never much debate within Ukraine's political class about whether to keep nukes. The debate was over what to get in exchange for them... some wanted to hold out for something close to NATO Article V to protect Ukraine from Russia. Clinton managed to convince Kravchuk that this wasn't necessary, and the result was the latter's signing of Ukraine's Budapest Memorandum.
Were any of the technicians Ukrainian? I know 0 of the details of warhead control systems, but as I understand it there's the fissile core, the explosive lens around it and a precisely timed electrical signal to set off the explosives uniformly. I'd guess the control layer is physically separate from those, because I can't imagine how you can make the explosive itself smart.
The explosives and the little ball of big kaboom themselves don't have permission links or locks, it's almost certain that the control layer prevents unauthorized issuance of the go signal. Thus (as I understand it) if you have technicians who can disassemble that without destroying it and replace the triggering system with one they/their nation has control of they have a perfectly good (or bad) big boom thing. There's more to it of course, such as the difficult parts becoming unreliable over time due, but can you be confident a 20 yr old Russian H-bomb won't go boom?
Delivering it precisely to a target is another matter, but for deterrence getting it to somewhere within a major city is probably enough. Let hope that never gets tested.
Excellent, true and really necessary.
What do you think is Israel’s theory of victory? Because while the attack seems to play out very well for them, they certainly went „all in“. Future peace with Iran will be hard and the gain Iran expects from the bomb also went up.
Unless they are very sure this delays the bomb significantly (or leads to regime change), this adds a lot of risk to have a hot conflict with a (soon) nuclear armed country.
I think Israel wants regime change or Iran to otherwise give up their nuclear ambitions entirely.
It's gotta be the latter right? The former is an unlimited objective war and there's no way in hell isreal can achieve that when they can't even achieve this against Gaza a far inferior foe.
The other answer might be "get the united states to agree to some security agreement"
Or, long shot, the Persians want their homeland back and have somehow organized to take it.
Gaza is a disaster, for Israel, Netanyahu, IDF. A quagmire. No end in sight. Except genocide.
People are generally less good, less honest, less truthful than they present themselves, even to themselves.
Most of the Middle East feel sorrow for Palestinians, but also secretly enjoy observing Israelis commit a genocide. Most of the West, too. Like Germans.
It can happen to the best of us.
Iran war is a distraction, in hope of running away from Gaza, reclaiming the position of eternal victim, and transferring the blame for genocidal intentions on Iran.
But the world is looking at destruction in Israel, and cannot but compare with images from Gaza. It is not the same.
Netanyahu fighting for political survival as usual? He has to unite the Israeli electorate against external threats so they forget about the fact that he's a corrupt prick.
Excellent post!
Claude says that MOPs can't breach Fordow though? 80m of granite is a lot, and it would only be able to penetrate like 20m of that?
It's not clear, not an easy yes or no. Possibly multiple staked strikes could penetrate deeper. Additionally, the US could target power systems, air intakes, and support infrastructure to render the facility inoperable. If I have to guess, the US could get it done if it really wanted to.
I'm an American, so I'll say "Pzz us off enough, and we'll do stuff you can't imagine."
Oddly enough, D.C. doesn't seem to mind a nation that considers the straight path to their Heaven to be death while obliterating the Great Satan (the USA) having nuclear warheads and multiple delivery channels. They also don't do much about riots that seem to go off on cue.
So I'm forced to agree that although we can -with ease- we won't.
You claim that this attack was done contra the US's wishes. Israeli journalist Nadav Eyal claims that this attack would only have been done with the explicit agreement, and even cooperation, of the US [0]. Do you find these claims non-credible? It seems that if they are correct, it would significantly increase the likelihood of American cooperation in attacking Fordow.
[0] https://x.com/Nadav_Eyal/status/1933534041464320491
It does seem like approval is not a binary and the US has some level of approval but not a high level. Multiple reports indicated [Trump wanted Israel to hold off](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-june-12-2025/), with his envoy Witkoff warning senators that Israeli strikes could trigger a "mass casualty event." Also why would you set up negotiations for Sunday and then deliberately sabotage them? If anything, the US approved attack would've come next week after no progress.
Surprising Iran seems to have had a lot to do with the appearance of disagreement between Israel and the U.S. And the element of surprise here seems to have been necessary and very effective indeed. Trump’s comments and demeanor in the last few days also seem to indicate a level of amusement with the whole situation - “Heads up? They didn’t give us a heads up, we knew all about it” - and joking about how Iran should return to the negotiating table even though certain leaders will never return.
Thanks for this post.
Great post! I just came across your body of work, such a serendipitous discovery.
How do you manage to write so often?
What do you think would happen if Israel used nuclear weapons on Iran as a last resort and how likely is that scenario?
> How do you manage to write so often?
I set aside a lot of time for it!
> What do you think would happen if Israel used nuclear weapons on Iran as a last resort and how likely is that scenario?
I think this would be met with very wide international condemnation. As such, I think it's quite unlikely. It would be a very grave escalation and a violation of very strong international norms.
The greater paradox is why is the Iranian goverment so invested in confrontation with Israel, at a high cost for Iran. There are no inherent conflicts between the 2 countries, and they were aligned in the Shah's time. Is it pure religious ideology? A way to legimitize the regime and project force all over the Middle East?
Think about it strategically: Iran's government faces persistent protests and deep unpopularity over economic conditions and political freedom. By positioning itself as the vanguard of Palestinian resistance and the defender of Jerusalem's Muslim holy sites, the regime claims a mantle of Islamic leadership that can resonate beyond Iran's borders. It's classic authoritarian playbook - external enemies justify internal repression.
This also matters for Iran's "axis of resistance" (Hamas, Hezbollah, militias in Iraq, etc.) Without the anti-Israel framework, what justification would Iran have for its tentacles across the region? The regime has brilliantly (if cynically) transformed a manufactured ideological conflict into real strategic assets.
Peter, destruction of Israel was a key plank of the Islamic revolution from its founding. When they keep saying it and acting on it and state they are willing to accept 20 million dead to accomplish it, maybe you should believe the Mullahs…
Yes but Iran is paying a high price for it, at least economically. I guess as long as the population can be kept in its place this is not critical to the regime.
Read something about Shia, or think about Ireland and Irish as opposed to Scotts and Scotland in relation to Britain and British.. Shia like Irish, belong to the group that has been treated extremely unfairly in the past and their current politics is, and will be for some time coloured by this natural opposition to might is right approach.
In historical, psychological sense Shia are losers, like Irish are losers, but are proud of their suffering, of their defeat.
Sunnis, British, Americans, are different, they remember their victories and tend to forget their defeats, as quickly as possible.
This is definitely not the only characteristic of Shia, but is a significant undercurrent in politics, culture.
Manipulation comes on top of this deep feeling that Palestinians are being treated unjustly by Israelis.
Because it's existential for Iran, the people and country, not just the government, to not become a failed state or a client state to be stripped from its resources, like several others in the area targetted by Israel and US.
Iran and Israel were firm allies prior to 1979.
What changed?
Oh, right….
Its people had mass revolt and overthrew the guy appointed to oversee the wholesale sell-out of its resources and make it a client state assisting their other outpost in the area go about its settler expansion. You know, the puppet installed there after the west toppled their legitimate leader.
Was that the change you had in mind?
Yup. And we all know what happened to those naive leftists - by the thousands- after the Revolution.
There’s a good reason 80% of Iranians despise their despotic fanatical regime.
> Yup. And we all know what happened to those naive leftists - by the thousands- after the Revolution.
The had a power play with the existing guys for the next day, and lost it. Like it happens in almost all revolutions when different ideas about what's to be done next collide. They weren't the majority to begin with.
> 80% of Iranians despise their despotic fanatical regime
Consider the sources of such "statistics"
https://www.youtube.com/live/38ohqcuyLhg?si=tUGa3fsnFlTmmCIv
Interview with an Iranian expat.
And the above statistic I noted came from a podcast interview quoting a source in the expat community.
Of course you are welcome to believe any antisemitic conspiracy nonsense you wish.
“From Iran's perspective, the nuclear program isn't about annihilation fantasies.” Might be more accurate to say that this is a minority viewpoint. Pretty sure there’re quite a few “annihilation fantasies” within Iran.
As soon as we dumped the enrichment vs. sanctions treaty and its verification protocols, it was inevitable that Iran would restart enrichment and also that Israel would stop them using any means. No one should be surprised.
Yeah I think "just let Israel do it" is a viable US strategy but with a lot of potential to spiral out of control and really annoy US interests (e.g., Straight of Hormuz closure).
>Straight of Hormuz closure
Could end up being a good thing if it lengthens AI timelines
Fascinating read. I have a probably stupid question: even if Israel can't bomb Fordow, can't it use its missiles to block access to the Fordow entrances, thereby rendering it inoperable? I assume there are multiple entry points, but can't Israel just keep bombing anything that even vaguely might be an entrance?
This isn't stupid IMO - it's actually smart tactics, and has been used in other conflicts. The key operational issues I see is that Fordow has many entrances that need to be hit repeatedly, including possibly secret ones that may be hard to find.
Moreover, Iran has extensive tunneling expertise and could potentially clear blocked entrances relatively quickly with heavy equipment already on site.
The IDF is trying to strike Fordow:
https://x.com/manniefabian/status/1933558999841939832
It will probably take a while to know the extent of the damage.
seems like the damage hasn't been notable yet
Can we offer the Iranian leadership amnesty somewhere? A life of luxury in Trump Tower Pyongyang, funded by the American taxpayer? Seems a lot cheaper than fighting a war. I'm normally not a Trump fan, but this seems like the sort of decorum-violating pragmatism he might go for.
Potentially viable. Certainly cheapest.
Israel finding a way to take out Fordo (like with limited ground troops, but not all out war) is not a possibility?
Bari Weiss asked Naftali Bennett this question during a live interview late Thursday night (while the initial attack in Iran was underway). It intrigued me that Naftali basically answered “no comment”, and quickly. Israeli control of airspace over Fordnow would greatly multiply the effectiveness of a small IDF ground force attempting to take direct control of the nuclear facility for the several days it might take to render it essentially unusable for a few years.
Interesting. ‘Everybody’ overlooks this option. Maybe you only need a few hundred trained man to get inside… you can ‘easily’ get them there.
‘Iran’s naked vulnerability — their air defenses are rubble’. 🤔 Doesn’t seem like that today, does it? Maybe hold off a bit on the BDA and don’t reflexively accept Israeli and US wishful thinking narratives? Just sayin……. How about this for a scenario……….. Israel keeps striking & gets its airforce gradually attrited, Iran keeps up the daily ballistic missile & drone bombardment on Israel, the U.S. remains too frit to put its planes into the fray, because it can’t afford the inevitable Iranian response in Hormuz or on its regional bases, the whole thing peters out inconclusively after a few weeks. Both sides claim victory, but which state has the better prospects going forward?
You need to read more widely. Your first premise is that Israel’s previous attack was hugely successful at degrading air defenses. When it was widely acknowledged that no aircraft penetrated Iran air space.
Your second is that irans oct 1 retaliation was unsuccessful. When even the New York Times acknowledged that nevatim air base was hit 18 times. The reason no one died was because Iran telegraphed the attack and did not aim at targets with people in them.
For those of us not feeding off the propaganda it was no surprise to see hypersonic missiles rain down on Israel last night.
Suggest you analyse the impact of emigration from Israel over the next year. Half of Israelis have dual passports
But fair dues for making predictions.
God rest the souls of all who died.
Israeli jets are bombing Tehran. That sure sounds like penetrating Iranian airspace to me.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/15/world/iran-israel-nuclear
I refer you to the first line of my comment.
You need to read more widely.
The New York Times is mostly propaganda. It said the October 1 strikes were ineffective.
It was actually NPR that identified 30 hits on the base. If the nyt was lying about that strike, why believe it now. The bombers overheat were locally launched drones. https://www.npr.org/2024/10/04/nx-s1-5140058/satellite-images-dozens-iranian-missiles-struck-near-israeli-air-base
Fun read with compelling scenarios. #3 represents my ideal outcome. The key difference: Trump isn’t a fake “compassionate” conservative, and Hegseth appears to be the strongest military leader we’ve had in my lifetime.
This combination could devastate Iran’s leadership and military capabilities without the self-defeating prioritization of Iranian civilian lives over US military personnel that hampered previous conflicts. I’m not endorsing either individual politically, but I expect far better strategic outcomes than we saw in Iraq.
America has a bias towards using force. It hasn't worked out well for us. Maybe the solution is... even more force!!!
Seriously, I just can't imagine what you were thinking in writing this comment. The issue in Iraq was not the conventional war, it was the insurgency after the conventional war ended. The more civilian casualties you create, the less popular you become and the greater the insurgency.
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Have their been German, Austrian, or Japanese insurgency after WW2? We made sure there was no hope in bothering with an insurgency. More civilian casualties does not always equal strong insurgency.
I'd agree that America has used its force needlessly against non-enemies. But my point is that when we engage with actual enemies, it needs to be devastating.
I'm not sure the analogy is valid. I'd argue that cultural differences are playing a role. Anyways, Americans won't want to fight a war that generates a lot of civilian casualties. It'll be another Vietnam.
"Hegseth appears to be the strongest military leader we’ve had in my lifetime."
Born pretty recently, then?
I suppose so. I certainly am not suggesting he is the best, the most principled, the most moral, or the most intelligent. But he does seem to be the type that would avenge an innocent US soldier's death more than others. Akin to the boyfriend that punches anyone that bumps into his girlfriend at a crowded bar.
Presumably Israel is highly motivated to strike Fordow, what do you think are the odds that either
1) Israel has prepared a specific delivery system for the type of munitions that could target Fordow
2) Israel has focused intelligence efforts on alternative approaches for shutting down Fordow
You write that "Mossad could pull off something truly unexpected," but I think that the unexpected is in many ways the expected. Like, I don't ascribe to Mossad some sort of god-like status, but it appears that their intelligence is routinely at the capabilities required to pull off something like they have over the last couple years.
Moreover, if they were already successful in this in the first round of strikes, we probably would currently have no idea or be able to verify this.
Articles like this are completely at the whim of whether Israel or Iran decides to publicly disclose the precise damage, which it seems like it could very plausibly be in the strategic interest of neither to do:
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-iran-strike-conflict/card/israel-hit-fordow-enrichment-site-u-n-atomic-energy-agency-chief-says-mGaU0Di59GI7ptEq1HKf?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=ASWzDAhbOYAMaJZmwXXQyLebiCeP78XqHYYGSj3E4XIYiAvnn9PLvoo4rJRDhq3KFcY%3D&gaa_ts=684dd98b&gaa_sig=j4maPECpCIxpuq5p93i16l5ash2PRJy75uqb-NZJZHAjy1dK0llcfm-EDRW3HQVz7pqISivq-i2u9qepoZE1Hg%3D%3D
Mossad is highly skilled but not literally magical, and the defenses of Fordow are real. We'll learn more soon but I think there's good reason to think this would be very hard, even for Mossad.
Let’s see what happens!
https://manifold.markets/bens/will-fordow-be-put-out-of-commissio?r=YmVucw
This is what I don't get: how could it be so hard for Israel to entomb Fordow by dropping dozens of kilotonnes of explosive on every entrance and air duct?
They have to know where those entrances and air ducts are. Some could be many miles away. I'm sure most are well hidden and their locations tightly guarded secrets.
I could even imagine Fordow having a system to recycle air, allowing it to operate in total isolation until the Iranians dig a new tunnel to it. (I'm not saying it does have that capability, just that it's technically conceivable.)
I'm sure these things are secret, but it seems like they could pretty much have agents walk all over the place to find them, even if imagery didn't work. Or even just obliterate every potential site?
I would love to know more about this - maybe it is what they are doing! Or maybe there is a massive tunnel that ends up in a major town (but then they could surely obliterate the tunnel??) ... it just seems too obvious for me to not be missing something, and I'd like to know what