Israel launches attack on Iran | US bombs Iran nuke sites

It is difficult to fairly judge this decision due to the dearth of intel information shared by the Administration and the fog of Trump worship from Hegseth and others.

That said, based on what we do know, I think this attack may have been the better choice (despite the risks, and we’ll see how that plays out in the coming days and months). Israel has made astonishing progress weakening Iran and limiting or severing the support of Iran’s proxies. Israel has control of the airspace and appears to have decapitates Iran’s military and intelligence leadership.

It might have been criminal not to take this opportunity now, in my view. We may come to regret it depending on the unpredictable nature of the response and possible terrorist blow-back.

Anyway, none of that means I support what Israel is doing in Gaza or the West Bank. I don’t and I hope that after this action the Trump Admin will finally take some action to restrain Israel in Gaza and the West Bank to pursue a genuine regional realignment and wider stability. I don’t have great hope for that in the face of the current realities, though.

I am and expect I will remain critical of Trump’s policies, conflicts of interest retest and narcissistic bullying. But this moment, given the extreme weakening of Iran and its proxies, is the best opportunity we have had to greatly disrupt Iran’s nuclear ambitions and further weaken a sclerotic and despotic regime that wishes death to all Americans.

I do think that Trump should seek authorization under the War Powers Act for any further action and to essentially ratify this attack, though I won’t hold my breath on that.
 
lawtig02 said:
That would be extraordinarily escalating even over what happened last night. If we take out Iran’s “navy,” we’re undoubtedly in a full-scale war.
Click to expand...
For the sake of discussion I’m not really interested in whether we are in a full scale war or not. Assume we are at war (not a fan) does Iran have any hope of keeping the Strait closed. I guess they could sink all of the tankers in the area causing massive oil spills and ecological destruction. But can they hold the Strait for any amount of time before they are annihilated. Is it a suicide mission?
Googled quickly the depth, I’m not sure it’s something that can be blocked with a graveyard of ships at 690’ but maybe there are places that could be blocked.
Militarily Iran seems impotent. Maybe they strike back at the US but I see that option being terror attacks not full on assaults.
 
nycfan said:
That said, based on what we do know, I think this attack may have been the better choice (despite the risks, and we’ll see how that plays out in the coming days and months). Israel has made astonishing progress weakening Iran and limiting or severing the support of Iran’s proxies. Israel has control of the airspace and appears to have decapitates Iran’s military and intelligence leadership.
Click to expand...
If Israel had done such a great job weakening Iran, why did we need to get involved? Why not just let them finish the job? We could have had the same result without the need to dirty our hands.
 
HandsonFire said:
For the sake of discussion I’m not really interested in whether we are in a full scale war or not. Assume we are at war (not a fan) does Iran have any hope of keeping the Strait closed. I guess they could sink all of the tankers in the area causing massive oil spills and ecological destruction. But can they hold the Strait for any amount of time before they are annihilated. Is it a suicide mission?
Googled quickly the depth, I’m not sure it’s something that can be blocked with a graveyard of ships at 690’ but maybe there are places that could be blocked.
Militarily Iran seems impotent. Maybe they strike back at the US but I see that option being terror attacks not full on assaults.
Click to expand...
Ok. Agree we could prevent Iran from blocking the strait. We have plenty of resources to do that. I just don’t think you can separate that decision from the fact it would be a massive escalation and a direct engagement between the US and Iranian militaries.
 
Paine said:
So we ignore the fact that the intel case was flimsy, there was no congressional authorization, and it risks regional chaos…all because there hasn’t been escalation yet? We’re supposed to high-five because it hasn’t spiraled yet? Less than 24 hours later? People said this kind of thing about Iraq too, until they didn’t.
Click to expand...
It has to play out.
 
HandsonFire said:
For the sake of discussion I’m not really interested in whether we are in a full scale war or not. Assume we are at war (not a fan) does Iran have any hope of keeping the Strait closed. I guess they could sink all of the tankers in the area causing massive oil spills and ecological destruction. But can they hold the Strait for any amount of time before they are annihilated. Is it a suicide mission?
Googled quickly the depth, I’m not sure it’s something that can be blocked with a graveyard of ships at 690’ but maybe there are places that could be blocked.
Militarily Iran seems impotent. Maybe they strike back at the US but I see that option being terror attacks not full on assaults.
Click to expand...
I don’t think we know the full extent of the asymmetrical options Iran has right now.

Iran was quite successful mining the Strait of Hormuz during the Iran-Iraq war, but obviously that was a very different situation. If they try it now, it likely draws the USA into a wider war and will freeze traffic through the Strait until an all clear can be given to commercial traffic, which could take weeks or months. Blocking oil and gas out of the strait will likely skyrocket oil prices (and actually benefit Russia in the short term as a result) until the matter is resolved and could result in a full-blown war.

Knowing all that, based on available reporting, I still think this was the right call. But we have to be realistic about the very serious potential repercussions…
 
Paine said:
There’s a pattern here. Whether it’s “let it play out” or “it might have been criminal not to take this opportunity,” both stances dodge accountability while dressing up deference to elite violence in the language of realism. Nycfan wraps her support in legalese and vague hopes for regional ‘realignment’; you hold out for a verdict from history. But neither of you confronts the core question: was this strike justifiable, lawful, and necessary?

And worse, neither of you grapples with what regime collapse would actually mean. You treat the decapitation of Iran’s leadership like a clean, strategic win, but if the regime falls, it won’t be replaced by a democracy. It’ll be replaced by chaos, civil war, or something even worse. That’s the problem with this kind of liberal hawk logic: it obsesses over opportunity, ignores blowback, and never asks who’s left to pick up the pieces.
Click to expand...
So IOW - we need to see how it plays out.
 
WaynetheDrain said:
If Israel had done such a great job weakening Iran, why did we need to get involved? Why not just let them finish the job? We could have had the same result without the need to dirty our hands.
Click to expand...
In the eyes of most of the region and the rest of the world, our hands are dirty any time Israel takes military action.

I understand that our direct involvement was necessitated because we have the munitions needed for this. That said, people keep saying that we have the only bomb that could penetrate this mountain fortress, but that is not entirely true. We have the only CONVENTIONAL weapon that (we think — it had never been used in a real conflict) can do the job. Nuclear weapons could also destroy the Fordow facility. We don’t want anyone with nuke taking that action, I don’t think.

Anyway, I understand your points. I have been very conflicted about this and fully admit my instinct here could be completely misguided. I hope the U.S. and our allies don’t pay a heavy price if so.
 
nycfan said:
It is difficult to fairly judge this decision due to the dearth of intel information shared by the Administration and the fog of Trump worship from Hegseth and others.

It might have been criminal not to take this opportunity now, in my view. We may come to regret it depending on the unpredictable nature of the response and possible terrorist blow-back.
Click to expand...
This is a nonsensical and unthinking post. The sentence I have put in bold is completely at odds with the other sentences here.

What is your conception of outer boundaries of how Iran and its proxies (or say, North Korea) will respond, given the sentence in bold?
 
HintonJamesHeel said:
So IOW - we need to see how it plays out.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. We have no idea how this will turn out. That seems to me to be far more reason for pessimism than for optimism, but anyone saying for sure what will happen from here is getting way out over his skiis.
 
Here’s a solid article about the legality of this type of strike (published a day before the attack took place):

The Law of Going to War With Iran

Right or wrong, the executive branch likely thinks Trump has the legal authority to do it—at least until Congress or the courts say otherwise.
www.lawfaremedia.org www.lawfaremedia.org

“… Both customary international law and the UN Chartergenerally prohibit “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Article 51 of the charter, however, makes clear that this restriction is not intended to “impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a [state.]” While the United States might be able to justify some military actions against Iran on the basis of individual self-defense, the more straightforward legal justification for joining Israel’s military campaign against Iran would be to do so on the basis of collective self-defense, wherein Israel would consent to the United States assisting it in exercising its own individual right of self-defense. Whether this option is available, however, will depend on how the Trump administration views the legality of the military campaign Israel is pursuing. …”

——
Hegseth expressly cited collective self-defense in his prepared statement this morning. Not saying it is a legit argument (since I think it hinges on the legality of the Israeli action in the first instance), just noting that the Trump team is going through the motions on this defense.
 
nycfan said:
Here’s a solid article about the legality of this type of strike (published a day before the attack took place):

The Law of Going to War With Iran

Right or wrong, the executive branch likely thinks Trump has the legal authority to do it—at least until Congress or the courts say otherwise.
www.lawfaremedia.org www.lawfaremedia.org

“… Both customary international law and the UN Chartergenerally prohibit “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Article 51 of the charter, however, makes clear that this restriction is not intended to “impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a [state.]” While the United States might be able to justify some military actions against Iran on the basis of individual self-defense, the more straightforward legal justification for joining Israel’s military campaign against Iran would be to do so on the basis of collective self-defense, wherein Israel would consent to the United States assisting it in exercising its own individual right of self-defense. Whether this option is available, however, will depend on how the Trump administration views the legality of the military campaign Israel is pursuing. …”

——
Hegseth expressly cited collective self-defense in his prepared statement this morning. Not saying it is a legit argument (since I think it hinges on the legality of the Israeli action in the first instance), just noting that the Trump team is going through the motions on this defense.
Click to expand...
Anyway, on the domestic front:

“…
The executive branch has—over frequent objections by legal scholars—long maintained that the president has substantial independent constitutional authority to direct the use of military force against foreign adversaries. While some presidents have claimed a near plenary ability to pursue such action, most recent presidential administrations—including Trump’s during his first term—have generally described this authority as extending, “at least insofar as Congress has not specifically restricted it,” to situations where the president determines (a) military action would “serve sufficiently important national interests” and (b) the “nature, scope, and duration” of anticipated military operations will not “constitute a war requiring prior specific congressional approval under the Declaration of War Clause.” In addition, during his first term, Trump’s Justice Department suggestedthat the president “has the constitutional authority to take defensive measures to protect U.S. persons” in a manner not subject to these same constraints, but the exact scope of this national self-defense exception remains unclear.

Congress has “specifically restricted” this authority in one regard: As part of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, it requires that, once U.S. armed forces are “introduced … into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances[,]” the president must “terminate” the use of those forces within 60 days (extendable to 90 days in certain circumstances), unless Congress has “enacted a specific authorization for such use[,]” extended the time period by statute, or is physically unable to meet. While some past presidents have suggested that this restriction is unconstitutional, more recent executive branch assessments have generally disagreed, at least outside the context of the national self-defense exception.…”

——
If you view the bombing of the Iran nuclear facilities as an offensive rather than defensive action, then Trump probably acted illegally. But while this debate needs to play out for long term purposes, as a practical matter no way this Congress challenges this action.
 
In a vacuum, I totally believe that eliminating or crippling Iran's nuclear weapon production capability is a good thing. They of all countries (or, rather, their regime) simply can't be allowed to have nukes, IMO. So, in a vacuum, I think that last night's strike was good and commend the President and his team for acting decisively to confront (and hopefully eliminate) a problem that has plagued many a presidential administration through the years.

What concerns me, though, is that only in the movies or in the fantasy realm does a strike like this occur in a vacuum. In other words, anyone who thinks that Iran won't try to retaliate, IMO, is naïve or has their head buried in the sand. Whether or not Iran's retaliatory ability is legitimately threatening is a different question. It may be, it may not be.

My concern is that by directly striking Iran militarily, we open ourselves up to escalation against any and all U.S. targets abroad. And any U.S. targets that are, in fact, targeted would merit an even more escalatory retaliatory response militarily. So the question to me is, was it worth it? It very well may have been- I don't know. I don't pretend to know the answer. But my question is, was it worth striking Iran knowing that there is a probability that they or their proxies will attempt to shed U.S. blood- military or civilian- and thus prompt further military action from the U.S. (i.e., drawing us into a full-fledged shooting war, which has tremendous costs in terms of lives and capital).

As lynch34 says above, time will tell. We have to let it play out- that's all we can do at this point.
 
wmheel1287 said:
There will be major escalation from here. Tens of thousands of Americans both in and out of uniform will die. The economy will be battered heavily.
Click to expand...
Hey, look on the bright side, though. We're giving massive tax cuts to the rich at the exact same time as we may be launching yet another Middle Eastern war!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top