When you consider WHY Israel was propping up Hamas, it might have. They propped up Hamas because they wanted infighting between Palestinian factions to further delay state formation.
Motives matter.
International Israel - Iran Conflict: PEACE DEAL CONFIRMED
- Thread starter Rob Battisti
- Start date
Motives matter.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2009
- Messages
- 28,019
- Reaction score
- 15,508
What part of the poll points to being "Anti-Israel" by not wanting them to attack Iran?
May as well just call it "Antisemitic" if you're going to have a dumb take. Don't half step.
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2024
- Messages
- 6,257
- Reaction score
- 16,678
So here are the authors of the report by the IAEA that many of the hawks on here are using as justification for war saying NO, there is no evidence Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons and NO, they never accused Iran of trying to.
So while you will read "60 % enriched uranium!!!! ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK!!!!" on here, you should soundly ignore that alarmist nonsense because it is - categorically - a false narrative.
There is NOTHING to affirm there is any systematic effort in Iran whatsoever to manufacture a nuclear weapon.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 12,053
- Reaction score
- 15,014
- Theres people in the Isreali armed force tired of Bibi constant wars.
I say @Madmick starts spamming Concession Accepted within 3 posts if you guys continue this conversation.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 61,838
- Reaction score
- 42,445
No, not sure if you're aware of what a strawman is. But my post certainly wasn't one.
The dollar spend isn't relevant. Just that they are providing the majority what is received.
It's absolutely bizarre you're trying to justify Iran arming terrorist organizations for decades, many of whom have killed Americans.
I don't think you understand what majority means. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn't fueled only by arms flowing to Hamas, it's fueled by arms flowing to Israel. Guess who provides most of Israel's shiny toys?
The conflict was already in full blaze before Hamas was ever birthed.
Where did I justify Iran arming proxies? Quote it.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2006
- Messages
- 14,235
- Reaction score
- 16,701
Its the same old wmd script used to justify iraq.... apparently still works on a lot of people. . Somehow
They will kill some innocent babies soon undoubtedly. And it will be front page
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2024
- Messages
- 6,257
- Reaction score
- 16,678
HOW does it work, though, mate?
They are misrepresenting a report to suggest something that the authors themselves are denying.
We know they're lying, we're being told there's no basis to the allegations, and yet people will still allow other human beings to die based on this falsehood.
What's wrong with these people? Are they rotten to the core?
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 5,814
- Reaction score
- 7,455
This week alone Israel has spent 65% of all it's Arrow 2 and 3 air defense missile stockpile and 70% of all it's David Sling's stockpile. They are already mostly relying on foreign air defenses mostly brought by the americans, patriot and thaad
Threatening actions during “negotiation” come with risks. You’re literally arguing Iran should be enriching weapons grade uranium.
Pretty sure Israel’s campaign wasn’t to get them to a negotiating table.
You referring to this?
The Israeli “Nuclear Alert” of 1973: Deterrence and Signaling in Crisis
Rumors of an Israeli nuclear alert in the early days of the 1973 Yom Kippur War have circulated for decades, even making their way into popular culture. The alleged alert has also informed more serious discussions about the use of nuclear weapon during international crises, and one celebrated...
And lol at 52 years being “short memory”. Have you ever given Israel a charitable interpretation? I don’t think so.
lol. You’re asking what Iran’s belligerence had to do with sanctions on them?
lol. “Or a deterrent” is pretty vague and it’s the first time you are acknowledging they could actually be developing nuclear weapons and not just “bargaining”.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2015
- Messages
- 2,971
- Reaction score
- 7,750
Being proud of sending your child to go fight and die for politicians is the most cowardly disgusting thing you could do as a parent.
It's different if the enemy is on your doorstep, don't even try that argument.
You and your son will be pawns for old dirty politicians and bankers. Remember that while you're cheering on sending your kid to die for some bs
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2003
- Messages
- 16,305
- Reaction score
- 19,636
You keep moving the goalposts.
You literally just said it didn't happen and that it was fan fiction. When given irrefutable proof it did happen, you change the topic to a whataboutism.
Obviously. They're terrorists. WTF kind of retarded question is this.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2020
- Messages
- 9,822
- Reaction score
- 6,551
Why don't you ask two additional questions:
1. Will Iran aquire a nuclear weapon?
2. Will Iran nuke Israel if it aquires a nuclear weapon?
As a non-nuclear armed signatory to the treaty, Iran is banned from acquiring nuclear weapons and is required to allow the IAEA to inspect and verify all nuclear materials and activities, including at short notice, if asked.
The agency regularly inspects Iran’s nuclear facilities, including sites like Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. The aim is to ensure that nuclear materials are only used for peaceful means and are not diverted for weapons use.
On 9 June, Mr. Grossi noted that man-made uranium particles had been found at three more, undeclared sites (Varamin, Marivan and Turquzabad). Iran, he said, had failed to provide “technically credible explanations” for the presence of the particles, despite years of consultations.
Yet somehow.... they did inspections on june 9th?
They literally have inspectors still in iran during this shit show.
Since the military attacks began almost a week ago, the IAEA has been reporting on damage at several of these facilities, including at nuclear-related sites located in Arak, Esfahan, Natanz and Tehran, and their potential radiological impact.
In his statement to the Board of Governors on 13 June, the morning of the attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, the Director General recalled the numerous General Conference resolutions on the topic of military attacks against nuclear facilities, in particular, GC(XXIX)/RES/444 and GC(XXXIV)/RES/533, which provide, inter alia, that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency”.
He also stated that, furthermore, the IAEA has consistently underlined that “armed attacks on nuclear facilities could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked”, as was stated in GC(XXXIV)/RES/533.
It was the Director General’s third comprehensive statement in four days about the situation in Iran, following the statement to the Board on 13 June and one to the United Nations Security Council later the same day. In addition, the Agency has provided regular updates on its official X account.
IAEA inspectors remain present in Iran, ready to be deployed at nuclear sites when possible, even though the number of Agency staff has been reduced somewhat in light of the security situation, Director General Grossi said.
He added: “The Agency is and will remain present in Iran. Safeguards inspections in Iran will continue as required by Iran’s safeguards obligations under its NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) Safeguards Agreement, as soon as safety and security conditions allow.”
In the years since Trump’s 2018 decision, Iran has limited IAEA inspections and stopped the agency from accessing camera footage. It’s also removed cameras. At one point, Iran accused an IAEA inspector of testing positive for explosive nitrates, something the agency disputed.
Analysis of IAEA Iran Verification and Monitoring Report — May 2025 | Institute for Science and International Security
ISIS is a non-profit, non-partisan institution providing public knowledge of nuclear proliferation and international security.
isis-online.org
- Iran stopped implementing the Additional Protocol (AP) to its comprehensive safeguards agreement (CSA) and the JCPOA’s additional monitoring arrangements on February 23, 2021. Iran’s actions and its refusal to cooperate with the IAEA across a wide range of monitoring issues causes the IAEA to consistently express doubt about understanding key aspects of Iran’s nuclear activities. Without the AP in place, the IAEA has neither been able to conduct complementary access to any sites and other locations in Iran nor received updated declarations from Iran.
- The IAEA reports that it has “lost continuity of knowledge in relation to the production and current inventory of centrifuges, rotors and bellows, heavy water and UOC [uranium ore concentrate], which it will not be possible to restore.”
- The IAEA concludes that “Iran’s decision to remove all of the Agency’s equipment previously installed in Iran for JCPOA-related surveillance and monitoring activities has also had detrimental implications for the Agency’s ability to provide assurance of the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.”
- Although the IAEA can ascertain the number of centrifuges deployed at Fordow and Natanz, it cannot know how many more Iran has made and stored or deployed at an undeclared site. A risk is that Iran will accumulate a secret stock of advanced centrifuges, deployable in the future at a clandestine enrichment plant, which would only need to house a relatively few advanced centrifuge cascades to enrich Iran’s current stock of 60 percent HEU to WGU. At the least, this situation complicates any future verification effort and contributes to uncertainty about the status of Iran’s nuclear activities and facilities.
- Combined with Iran’s refusal to resolve outstanding safeguards violations and the program’s unresolved nuclear weapons dimensions, the IAEA has a significantly reduced ability to monitor Iran’s complex and growing nuclear program. The IAEA’s ability to detect diversion of nuclear materials, equipment, and other capabilities to undeclared facilities remains greatly diminished.
Hamas was also included in discussions about increasing the number of work permits Israel granted to Gazan laborers, which kept money flowing into Gaza, meaning food for families and the ability to purchase basic products.
Israeli officials said these permits, which allow Gazan laborers to earn higher salaries than they would in the enclave, were a powerful tool to help preserve calm.
Monsters!!!!!
Again, bibi fucked up in hindsight. He should have stood more with the hardliners who probably wanted Gaza to starve. Sure, the people would have suffered far sooner and more dramatically than Hamas would have. But hey, you’re all about that, right? Maybe Hamas would have packed up and invited fatah to take over. It’s hilarious you keep repeating this notion that they (Hamas) would just “collapse” without mass suffering of the people first.
Do you think Hamas would have just peacefully transferred power? Do you think the people of Gaza may have suffered far more before Hamas suffered?
Part of the motive was to actually keep Gaza from falling into graver, more desperate conditions. And sure, it wasn’t kindness, it was thought to keep Israeli’s safer. And it’s pretty hilarious to hear the “pro” Palestinian team suggest they wanted Israel to suffocate Gaza more and allow less into Gaza.
It’s nothing like Iraq wmd. Again, here we KNOW they have near weapons grade uranium that can be converted to weapons grade in days.
IAEA is saying they “can not affirm”. They don’t have evidence. And if Iran wanted to suppress evidence, they pretty easily could and would.
But hey, give Iran the benefit of the doubt that they are producing weapons grade uranium but have only good intentions.
