You are providing NO evidence, and so you still have to make your case,
What do you need evidence of? That Israel are bombing Lebanon? Are you being serious? I think you're not because you then state:
Hezbollah started this
with no source.
Why should Israel stop striking Hezbollah in Lebanon when Hezbollah is not being stopped by the government of Lebanon, and is continuing attacks on northern Israel? (see ZeroHedge Story below!)
To make peace with Iran.
Also, Iran just struck the Kuwait International Airport, which should not be considered a military target!
Agreed: it's a war crime. The entire war is a fiasco.
Israel has only responded to prior attacks, while Iran has threatened to eliminate Israel from the map, and has also attacked other nations, such as the UAE.
This is demonstrably untrue. E.g. THE CURRENT WAR IN IRAN.
Israel and the US limited their attacks to Iran itself,
This is demonstrably untrue. E.g. ISRAEL ARE BOMBING LEBANON.
I no longer assume good faith.
could
Exactly my point: that is the Japanese model. Japan have not pursued a nuclear weapon: they have pursued the sufficient expertise to make one should they need to. That is the most that Iran have done and that's in addition to the fact that their former supreme leader (whom we assassinated) declared nuclear weapons Haram.
Intriguing how your source, which you quoted explicitly says:
“I don’t think that there is a lasting, durable solution to Iran’s nuclear program through military means.”
Also, I have no clue why you're going on about Israel or why I should care. Obviously, they have nukes and obviously they are belligerent to their neighbors. By your logic, that should be a problem, and yet, you make an exception for them.
Again, still not sure if you've actually understood the entire point of this thread: the war encourages Iran to have a nuke. Thoughts on that instead of some kind of weird argument about how Christianity is better than Islam?
I'll assume good faith here.
I disagree, because according to the UN, they already were!: https://greatawakening.win/p/1ASZVknqg2/un-inspectors-admit-that-iran-ha/
No, they weren't. What it says is that they have nuclear material. It can be used for a variety of purposes, but what is probably the most likely purpose is the Japan strategy of having the components of a nuclear weapon available to make if they are threatened, but without actually making one or certainly, using one. Please stick to facts: the UN did not declare that Iran were developing or had a nuclear weapon.
see also my comment, in thread, here: https://greatawakening.win/p/1ASZVknqg2/x/c/4eblo7jHStB
Not sure what your point is.
It's not that just that Israel has evidence that Islam is not true per se
Dude, this is what you wrote above! This is why I have to preface my comment with point out how I'm trying to take you in good faith, but you instantly misrepresented a source and then directly contradicted what you wrote before. This is desperate nonsense. The entire argument that Israel existing per se means that Islam is not true genuinely beggars belief as well. There has never been anyone in history who said, "Yeah, I guess Muhammad wasn't the seal of the prophets since the State of Israel exists". Wild stuff, man.
The stuff about Christianity is obviously irrelevant and like most of your comment is not at all related to the topic, which is that this war has galvanized and legitimized the desire for a nuclear weapon in Iran. If you were Iran, what would you do now? Would you think, "Well, Israel and America will just bomb me at will, so I guess I'd better not pursue a nuclear weapon, which is the single best deterrent to their aggression?" Of course not. Iranians are rational actors and as much as you want to paint them as some illogical death cult, they are acting in their geopolitical best interests they understand them. They are not motivated by superstition or mental illness or revanchism, but basic existential dread and a desire to come out ahead on the negotiations.
if
Yes, if. The argument from ignorance is also not compelling. But yes, of course, there was something wrong with that: it was completely unnecessary and murderous. There's a reason why apologized.
we have already won militarily
lol, no. The administration set out four objectives and followed it up with a fifth one informally later:
- Destroying Iran’s missile capabilities: Not done. They keep on shooting missiles at Arab states and Israel.
- Annihilating their navy: Somewhat done, with their major vessels, but they still have several dozen to low hundreds of speed boats that can effectively mine the Persian Gulf.
- Ensuring that the world’s number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon: This is literally impossible as "never" requires us waiting until the end of time, but even if we take it at face value, they didn't have a nuclear weapon before this and don't have one now, so the situation is no different materially in that sense. The big difference is that now they have a much greater incentive to get a nuclear weapon.
- Ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund, and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders: Complete fail, as Hamas, Hizbullah, and the Houthis are not disarmed or destroyed at all.
The fifth implicit one was the notion of toppling the government, which is also completely unrealistic and the administration later explicitly said was not an objective after calling for it.
He is the de facto leader of a military coalition involving Saudi Arabia, UAE, and a few others
Yeah, we'll see how long that lasts. If you were Qatar or the UAE, would you want to be an American ally after this? Iran completely destroyed the American military bases there, causing billions of dollars of damage and killing American and Arab state civilians for what? This just made a bunch of irrelevant actors a target.
f there is a nuke running around, I think the clear order of business is to track it down and neutralize it
There's that pesky "if" again. Meanwhile, we actually do know one Middle East rogue nation that is nuclear-armed and in the midst of committing genocide. Do you know who that is?
No one said it. I inferred it from the fact that that is how the United States beat Japan in World War II. As I wrote above, there is no path for a military victory in Iran. You responded by saying that America beat Japan. If you aren't trying to imply using a similar tactic, you have to see how that's a pretty clear implication of what you wrote.
That said, what is your strategy for winning militarily in Iran?
No. None of that is correct. And if somehow Israel (?) has "evidence that Islam is untrue" (???), then they could just release it and devastate the whole world with facts and logic today.
You also didn't actually answer the question: this thread was started by me asserting that the war has given Iran a greater incentive to nuclearize. Do you agree or disagree with that assessment?
I'm not.