I initially wanted to update my previous short post, Israel is the land of love, either at its end, or through comments, but I decided to behave more traditionally and write a new post.

Jon Stewart: Why did we have to bomb Iran now?

From Tuesday evening:

The relevant segment starts at minute 7 and goes to minute 11:

But what happened with Iran? Weren’t we about to make a nuclear deal? Wasn’t our dealmaker-in-chief making a deal to keep Iran from enriching uranium? Actually, didn’t we have a deal before our dealmaker-in-chief so wisely pulled us from that deal? Why did this have to go bombing on Iran now?

Well, that’s because Bibi warned us! At 7:30:

And by next spring, at most by next summer at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage.

Iran is months away from having a nuclear bomb, says Netanyahu.

In 2012.

By the way, did Iran happen to get that bomb from a company called Acme? Like, will it be delivered to Israel on rocket-powered skates? Will it go off in a tumultuous meep-meep?

Seriously, why did we have to bomb Iran now?

“Iran is so dangerous. Weeks away from having the fissile material for an entire arsenal of nuclear bombs.” Holy shit! That’s why! Iran’s only weeks away from having an entire arsenal of nuclear bombs, says Netanyahu. In 2015.

2015. Think about that!

No, seriously. I’m not being facetious. I really want to know why we had to bomb Iran.

“Now, we’re going to show you Iran’s secret nuclear files. Here’s the warhead. Here’s the bomb.”

And that’s from 2018. I don’t know if Iran is any closer to having a bomb, but it is clear Israel now has the capacity to enrich their drawings.

Of course, a hot war between Israel and Iran could threaten the United States. It’s best we stay out of it.

“Secretary of State Marco Rubio is saying, Israel took unilateral action against Iran, and that the US is not involved in strikes.”

We’re not involved. That’s… That’s good. That’s good.

“The US says it was informed beforehand.”

Good neighbor policy. I mean, we were informed. They let us know. Still not being involved, really.

“President Trump acknowledged yesterday that he was aware of the Israeli operation, and he gave it a green light.”

They don’t know what they’re talking about. We were told, we approved, it’s still Israel’s game.

“Israel used American equipment during its initial strikes against Iran.”

What the fuck are we doing? All right. So, we knew, and we approved, and we gave them all the shit to do it with.

I’m confused. Are we involved? I think I need clarification from our parade grand marshal-in-chief.

“The president made it clear that the United States is not involved. He wanted to make that very clear. But at the same time, it’s possible that we could get involved, but we’re not involved at this moment.”

See, we’re Switzerland.

BBC News: Why did we have to bomb Iran now?

Among the discussed topics:

  • Why has Israel bombed Iran now?
  • How close is Iran to have a nuclear weapon?
  • Is the US going to war with Iran?
  • Where and what is Fordo?
  • What are bunker buster bombs?
  • Do Iranians like their government?
  • What would happen if the Ayatollah was killed?
  • Is Iran capable of overwhelming Israeli defences?
  • Why aren’t China and Russia providing support?
  • What nuclear weapons does Israel have?
  • Why is Israel allowed nuclear weapons but not Iran?
  • Is there a natural replacement to Iran’s regime?

Quick takeaways:

  • The US intelligence did not say that Iran is that close to producing nuclear weapons. But Trump, ignoring the intelligence reports, said Iran was “weeks away” from such an outcome.
  • Minute 8:50 to 9:40: Bibi, saying years ago (2018, 2015, 2012, 2006, 1996, 1995) that Iran was very close to build a nuclear bomb.
  • Israel’s defensive missile systems: Iron Dome, 10 to 70 km, intercepts short-range rockets; David’s Sling, 15 to 300 km, intercepts medium to long-range missiles; Arrow system, 100 to 2400 km, intercepts long-range ballistic missiles.

As for why Israel is allowed nuclear weapons, that’s because they’re good guys who can be trusted, but Iran cannot be trusted.

Notice the “we” in the bombing issue: “Je suis Bibi”

We, the collective West, reluctantly accepted that every member of the UN Security Council can have nuclear weapons (because there’s no way to block them), but then… Oh, well, Israel was helped by the French to acquire nuclear technology in the 1960s. It maintains a policy of “nuclear ambiguity,” neither confirming nor denying its arsenal, estimated at 80–400 warheads. India and Pakistan couldn’t be stopped, either. But Iran, oh well, Iran being a dictatorship… like so many others, but at the same time having as a declared duty the annihilation of the state of Israel… we must stop them, the same way we stopped Saddam Hussein from using WMDs he didn’t have! Sounds fair to me. Because Iran is nowhere near the completion of a nuclear bomb!

Chancellor Merz even congratulated Bibi, calling Israel’s actions “the dirty work … for all of us.” He was talking about preventing Iran from building nuclear weapons, but as long as he praised Bibi’s determination, this can be taken as including an appraisal of the massacre in Gaza, including the recent killing of 59 people by shooting the guns from tanks. We’re busy counting the missiles, so Bibi’s ethnic cleansing can continue unhindered.

At the recent G7 meeting, retarded Emmanuel Macron thought that Trump left early to discuss a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, while insisting that we cannot allow Iran to develop a nuclear arsenal. At the same time, Macron rejected the perspective of a change of regime in Iran: “Does anyone think that what was done in Iraq in 2003 was a good idea? Does anyone think that what was done in Libya the next decade was a good idea? No!”

But Trump does not want peace.

Reuters:

Israel has severely hit Iran’s nuclear program, but without U.S. firepower can likely not destroy Fordow, a plant dug deep into a mountain, where Iran has enriched uranium up to 60%, close to the 90% weapons grade.

“The Israeli army is obviously unable to accomplish that. It lacks the necessary weapons. But the Americans have them,” said Merz in an interview with broadcaster ZDF.

In another interview, he said the decision could be made soon depending on whether Iran was prepared to return to the negotiating table.

Oh, yeah. 60% is so close to 90%! Like a Volkswagen is to a Lamborghini.

And who the fuck cares about what Merz has to say? By the way, how does one say Lebensraum in Hebrew or Yiddish? How about Nakba in German? Be honest, Chancellor: if it weren’t for the murder of millions of Jews by a bunch of nutcases under the leadership of a mustachioed man, would you still be ass-licking Bibi today? Nakba was a Zionist quest for Lebensraum. The Six-Day War was a quest for Lebensraum. The illegal occupation of the West Bank is a quest for Lebensraum. The ethnic cleansing of Gaza is a Sonderbehandlung applied to Palestinian Arabs. It’s morally abject to say it isn’t!

The existence of the Holocaust doesn’t give Israel the right to kill as many Arabs as it wishes. Not to mention that the state of Israel didn’t exist back then, and it didn’t come into existence peacefully. Since 1948, conflict after conflict and war after war took place in the region. Given that after WWII there wasn’t any pogrom in Europe, why did they have to establish a state there? “God’s promise” is bullshit and bears no legal value! If at least they’d be able to live in peace with the Arabs, and show them that they’re “the only true democracy in the region”! But they are not. Not in the West Bank, and certainly not in Gaza!

From Decolonize Palestine:

There is a misunderstanding of the process that is the Arabization of the Middle East and North Africa. … The process of the Arabization of the state united all these under Arabic speaking officials, and made it law that the language of state and of commerce would become Arabic. Thus, it became advantageous to assimilate into this identity, as many government positions and trade deals were offered only to Muslim Arabs.

So although the vast majority of the population of these lands were not ethnically Arab, they came to identify as such over a millennium. Arab stopped being a purely ethnic identity, and morphed into a mainly cultural and linguistic one. In contrast to European colonialism of the new world, where the native population was mostly eradicated to make place for the invaders, the process in [Middle East and North Africa] is one of the conquered peoples mixing with and coming to identify as their conquerors without being physically removed, if not as Arabs, then as Muslims.

Following from this, the Palestinian Arabs of today did not suddenly appear from the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century to settle in Palestine, but are the same indigenous peoples living there who changed how they identified over time. This includes the descendants of every group that has ever called Palestine their home.

…

The whole argument is a trap. The basic implication of this line of argumentation is as follows:

If the Jewish people were in Palestine before the Arabs, then the land belongs to them. Therefore, the creation of Israel would be justified.

From my experience, whenever this argument is used, the automatic response of Palestinians is to say that their ancestors were there first. These ancestors being the Canaanites. The idea that Palestinians are the descendants of only one particular group in a region with mass migrations and dozens of different empires and peoples is not only ahistorical, but this line of thought indirectly legitimizes the original argument they are fighting against.

This is because it implies that the only reason Israel’s creation is unjustified is because their Palestinian ancestors were there first. It implies that the problem with the argument lies in the details, not that the argument as a whole is absolute nonsense and shouldn’t even be entertained.

The ethnic cleansing, massacres and colonialism needed to establish Israel can never be justified, regardless of who was there first. It’s a moot point. Even if we follow the argument that Palestinians have only been there for 1300 years, does this suddenly legitimize the expulsion of hundreds of thousands? Of course not. There is no possible scenario where it is excusable to ethnically cleanse a people and colonize their lands. Human rights apply to people universally, regardless of whether they have lived in an area for a year or ten thousand years.

Oh, on Arab terrorism. I personally believe that Northern Ireland should belong to the Republic of Ireland. I don’t believe in any kind of colonialism. This didn’t make the Irish Republican Army (IRA) less murderous and more acceptable. But Britain didn’t kill them all; on the contrary, there was in the end the Good Friday Agreement, which I consider to be a capitulation to terrorists. But this is what happened. (It was a bad idea, because it raised huge practical post-Brexit problems: the GFA forbade any de facto border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, but one was still in the EU, whereas the other wasn’t anymore.)

Terrorism is unacceptable, especially when civilians are targeted, but sometimes it’s born out of perceived injustice. In Israel’s case, Israel initially wanted to annihilate the PLO, and it even invaded Lebanon for that, only to consider at a later point that the PLO was a legitimate negotiating partner. (Alas, by invading Lebanon, they triggered the creation of Hezbollah.)

In the end, Israel is responsible for the creation of most forms of Arab terrorism, even those supported by Iran.

Should I remind you that Bibi also supported the financing of Hamas in Gaza? His idea was based on “divide et impera” and was meant to sabotage the Palestinian Authority, whose only remaining authority was in the unoccupied portions of the West Bank.

Iran is anything but a democracy, yet two wrongs don’t make a right

There’s absolutely no honesty when Israel’s authorities are involved:

You see, the two countries are separated by 2,000 km. And Iran’s technology is less advanced than Israel’s, which also benefits from Uncle Sam’s. Therefore, Israel can claim to have more precise targets, whereas Iran’s long-range ballistic missiles, intercepted or not, spread diffusely upon falling. It’s as simple as that.

Israel also has infiltrated Iran with spies and weapons, and some attacks came from within Iran! For instance, there was a “drone base” hidden somewhere near Tehran. The visual comparison from the above tweet is morally abject, because it’s false!

No war is fair, regardless of who’s within their rights. In this case, while Iran and Israel are mortal enemies, such a war is unacceptable. Civilians will suffer on both sides. And, to be honest, Israel started it, because Bibi claimed the Iranians would soon have the nuclear bomb!

Some speculate that Russia, while being theoretically Iran’s ally, is secretly happy with the war. One possible reason: the hope that the oil prices will rise. I won’t discuss other possible reasons.

But if the Hormuz Strait closes, and if Iran’s oil-producing capabilities are severely impaired, an entire world will suffer. 80-90% of Iran’s exported 1.3-1.8 million barrels per day go to China. So if the US helps Israel literally destroy Iran, it’s as if it declared war to China! The US has considered its interests affected for much less in the past, but the US is always happy to start a war.

When Ursula von der Scheiße declared that ‘Donald is right’ and China is the problem, the stupid bitch disregarded the fact that Trump is the one who’s destroying an entire planet’s trade, economy, and stability. China’s restriction on the exports of rare earth elements was a reaction to Trump’s new tariffs. The fact that it also affected the EU is a reaction to the EU rejecting China’s offer to ally against the US! Economically and commercially, of course.

Trump is more unpredictable than ever. On joining Israel’s strikes on Iran:

  • “I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do.”
  • “I have ideas as to what to do, but I haven’t made a final [decision]. I like to make the final decision one second before it’s due, because things change. Especially with war.”

Still, a change in Iran’s government “could happen.”

There’s a growing discontent among Republicans and with the public. According to an Economist/YouGov poll conducted over the weekend, when asked whether the US military should “get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran” (question 23), just 19% of 2024 Trump voters said yes, 53% said no, while 28% were unsure. Overall, only 16% said yes (10% of 2024 Harris voters). Tucker Carlson, a staunch Putinist, said he can’t be persuaded that “Iran is our enemy.” Steve Bannon also disapproved of the US involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict.

Watching Trump speak during his recent remarks at the White House about the escalating Israel–Iran conflict, I noticed a rather peculiar body language. The only qualified analysis I could find with a quick search was this one by Dr. John Paul Garrison, clinical & forensic psychologist and body language expert. He mostly insists on Trump displaying remarkably little anxiety or visible concern. Trump’s body also exhibits disapproval more than once. I was puzzled by the peculiar expressions on his face, but Dr. Garrison didn’t see what I saw in Trump.

My take is that he’s hiding a lot, and I mean a lot. The Israeli ambassador to the US, Yechiel Leiter, on Merit TV: “We’ve pulled off a number of surprises. When the dust settles, you’re going to see some surprises on Thursday night and Friday, that will make the beeper operation almost seem simple.” After he compared Iran with the Nazis, he also stated that Trump “understands and supports” Israel’s position that appeasement is not a solution. Israel doesn’t want a diplomatic solution.

I believe that Trump is waiting to see what Israel can do without the direct American involvement in bombing Fordo by using B-2 bombers from Diego Garcia and GBU 57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs. Israel will not be able to penetrate the bunker in Fordo, but it might be able to topple the regime or assassinate the Ayatollah.

I suspect that Trump is not happy to need to bomb Iran, and even less to deal with the aftermath of a change of regime in Tehran, but he’s committed to preventing Iran from getting anywhere near the possibility of building a nuclear bomb. The only last-second decision he’d have to make depends on what Bibi tells him. Therefore, Trump has to wait and see how far Israel will be able to advance its agenda.

But Iran has absolutely no chance against the duo Israel-US. Even against Israel alone, Iran is doomed.

All we can do now is to sit and wait.

Meanwhile, Europe is ridiculous. Reuters: European ministers to hold nuclear talks with Iran on Friday in Geneva:

The foreign ministers of Germany, France and Britain plan to hold nuclear talks with their Iranian counterpart on Friday in Geneva, a German diplomatic source told Reuters.

The ministers will first meet with the European Union’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, at Germany’s permanent mission in Geneva before holding a joint meeting with the Iranian foreign minister, the source said.

The aim of the talks between Iran and the Europeans, which the German source said are taking place in coordination with the United States, is to persuade the Iranian side to firmly guarantee that it will use its nuclear programme solely for civilian purposes.

How could this stop Israel and the US from attacking Iran? And how does this accommodate Chancellor Merz’s calling of Israel’s actions “the dirty work for all of us”?