comment: >
  
  Check out operation opera. The israelis are not fucking around when it comes to destroying nuclear capabilities of their enemies
context: You know, as much as we’ve been involved in Middle East conflicts over the past few decades, I think a scenario like this would be what would actually pull us into a new Gulf War, as opposed to a U.S.-Iran standoff. 
  The American public is exhausted from the GWOT, our focus has been redirected towards Europe and the Asia-Pacific, our forces reoriented and returned to an emphasis on great-power conflict and conventional war, and I don’t think a President with half a brain cell would send us full force into the Middle East again. 
  But the Saudis are in a new Cold War with Iran for control of the Gulf and the Israelis just do whatever the Israelis wanna do. What’s more likely is that Israel or Saudi Arabia end up in a fight with Iran whether they develop a nuke or not, and we end up getting dragged into it piece by piece until we wake up one day and we’re leading the charge again, god forbid. 
  And as a Marine, there’s not a whole lot of places I’d be less excited to operate in than Iran. It’s an absolute nightmare for an attacking or occupying force, far more so than Iraq or Afghanistan ever was. Even if a ground invasion was off the table, which for the love of god it had better be, we’re still looking at a miserable engagement in the Gulf, not to mention the havoc that Iranian-backed militias will be wreaking in the rest of the region. >
  
  No one is invading Iran, least of all the US... There is no need to, precision strikes would be all that is necessary here and Iranian air defenses are a joke.  And there is nothing Iran could do in response other than lob SRBMs at Israel and Saudi Arabia, which not only wouldn't accomplish much, but would invite further strikes they are incapable of stopping.  Or Israel could just escalate their operations on the ground, just look up all the Iranian nuclear scientists they've assassinated in recent years... They killed one of them with a remotely operated robot that had a machine gun strapped to a few years ago.
  And people might fear Iran blockading the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation, but even that isn't an option for them these days... Its more a liability for themselves than for Saudi Arabia.  Saudia Arabia has long anticipated conflict with Iran, especially since the Iran-Iraq War and attacks on tankers in the Persian Gulf.  In the 80s they built the East-West pipeline and can divert upwards of 50% of their entire crude production to the Red Sea and transport it from there; and could probably rapidly expand that capacity if necessary.  Conversely, the Iranian government generates almost all of its revenue from oil, gas, and other material exports, 100% of which are transported through the Strait of Hormuz... A shooting war in the Persian Gulf would literally bankrupt the Iranian government and destroy their economy. >
  
  With all due respect, you speak with the typical overconfidence of someone who sees war as a simple black and white calculus. The reality may be what you think it is, but maybe not. 
  We thought Ukraine would fall to the Russians within weeks, it didn’t. We thought the Russian army was the world’s second most powerful, it’s clearly not. I would hope that this year has helped people, even without training and experience, understand that in warfare nothing is guaranteed and one day you can know something with absolute certainty and the next day that knowledge can be turned on its head. 
  Obviously I would hope no president would be stupid enough to order an invasion of Iran, and instead would keep any conflict limited to air and sea engagements, but who knows? Regardless, however it actually played out, such a war would be horrific, devastating for the region, and it would be my guys who’d have to risk their lives to get it done, not the armchair generals safe at home. 
  I mean no disrespect, but underestimating your enemy is quite possibly the worst thing you can do when it comes to this shit.
  But like I said, this all belays my original point, which wasn’t discussing how a war would be fought, just estimating that if the US did find itself in a conflict with Iran, it would likely be due to Israel or Saudi Arabia dragging us into it. Mohammed bin Salman thinks he’s the next Bismarck, and like I said the Israelis just do whatever the fuck they want. >
  
  What am I underestimating? We've already seen Iran's air defense competency when their 'elite' Tehran AA batteries (best troops with the best equipment defending their capital) shot down a civilian airliner taking off from their own damn airport. And you seem to be exaggerating the hell out of US interests here... Israel conducts airstrikes against Iran, therefore the US (US Marines in particular) must invade Iran? What? How the hell does that make any sense whatsoever?  What do you even think the US would be doing in this hypothetical invasion you seem to think is inevitable if Israel attacks?  The US has little reason to get involved at all, least of all to invade.  At best I could see us getting 'dragged into' the conflict as you described it, but to a similar extent of our involvement in say, Libya, IE: air/naval assets conducting strikes, nothing more... The US has quite literally nothing to gain by invading Iran and twenty years of experience with what we have to lose.
  Not to mention we don't even have the capacity for what you are describing there anymore... You yourself even acknowledge our reorientation towards Asia... We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars and the last decade drawing down our Middle Eastern footprint and growing our Asian footprint; CENTCOM has reduced the number of troops in the Middle east by tens of thousands, we've consolidated our bases, abandoned others entirely, we have been withdrawing and redeploying air defense batteries, we don't even continuously have carriers in that theater anymore, after having at least one there 100% of the time for decades.  We just don't have the logistics in place to support something like what you are describing anymore.  We are done with the Middle East, we don't care anymore.  Its China and NATO commitments or bust at this point. >
  
  
  What am I underestimating? We've already seen Iran's air defense competency when their 'elite' Tehran AA batteries (best troops with the best equipment defending their capital) shot down a civilian airliner taking off from their own damn airport.
  
  So you're using an example of them successfully shooting down a plane, to show that they would be incapable of shooting down something else? >
  
  If you mis-identify something as large as an airliner taking off from your own airport you lack sophisticated radar ability to be able to properly determine threats. >
  
  
  If you mis-identify something as large as an airliner taking off from your own airport you lack sophisticated radar ability to be able to properly determine threats.
  
  The plane was literally a threat, from an AD point of view, because it was not scheduled at the time it took off.
  While their procedures for real-time information sharing sucked, their AA battery identified a plane in an area it should not have been in, and shot it down.
  That is not evidence that they are incapable of shooting down aerial threats. It is merely evidence that they are trigger happy, and lack real-time updates to denote friendlies.
  During war, almost all countries stop operating aircraft above and around friendly SAM batteries for exactly this reason, except in specific time windows. >
  
  When will they actually have nukes? >
  
  Here is a possible timetable from a thoroughly reputable source. >
  
  So within 12 months we should be expecting Israel and Iran to go to war. >
  
  Bingo card of 2020-3 >
  
  I said Israel would be using some bunker busters on this facility a week ago on Reddit. Y’all down voted me 👌
  But the truth is they have bombed nuclear facilities before Iran’s being one of them. Not sure why this is shocking news lol. I would bet Israel pilots have been practicing this exact bombing run the very second it became operational >
  
  Given the advances in those, that would be my guess for a first strike. >
  
  Awesome, we really need World War III, as Iran is good friends with Russia now >
  
  What will Russia do? Can’t even deal with Ukraine. Aside from nukes, obviously. >
  
  It's far from over in Ukraine. Don't get me wrong, Russia is struggling heavily but the longer this drags on the worse it gets for Ukraine. The West will struggle to supply them with weapons soon enough thanks to most NATO countries neglecting to spend as much as they'd promised to meaning that most of them lacked appropriate stockpiles. As it currently stands only 10 NATO countries have anything left to give the Ukrainians.
  America, the world's most powerful military produces about 15,000 missiles and shells per month. Ukraine is blowing through about 5,000 a day. And this is basically as good as it gets in terms of production. Other countries are producing less and so at some point Ukrainian demand will outstrip the available supply when all the stockpiles are empty.
  And this is without taking other things like China/Taiwan into account. With that brewing on the horizon the US can't give too much lest they need it if that conflict blows up. Then there's the whole energy crisis, the longer this goes on the worse economies are going to suffer worldwide. This will translate into less public support for the war.
  Russia is also nearly done mobilizing 200,000 soldiers and plans to mobilize another 700,000 in early 2023. Also keep in mind that Trump tried pulling the US out of NATO and was best friends with Putin. So if Putin can drag this out for another year or two. It's very possible that the rest of the world would either no longer care or no longer have the capacity to help in the way that is needed. And then Ukraine might lose. >
  
  
  Don't get me wrong, Russia is struggling heavily but the longer this drags on the worse it gets for Ukraine. The West will struggle to supply them with weapons soon enough thanks to most NATO countries neglecting to spend as much as they'd promised to meaning that most of them lacked appropriate stockpiles. As it currently stands only 10 NATO countries have anything left to give the Ukrainians.
  
  You do realize we’re just dicking around in the Ukraine, right???
  If we decided to go balls deep and started supporting and supplying Ukraine with the level of shit we’d be supplying say Poland or Romania. The Russians wouldn’t survive the winter. The only option they’d have would be nuclear and they’d survive just long enough to regret that. You’re right Russia is struggling heavily but... the longer this drags on the worse it gets for them not the Ukraine. They’ve got the backing of countries who’s GDP’s eclipses Russias by orders of magnitudes and has military support stacked to the roof waiting to be FedEx’ed to Kyiv!
  
  America, the world's most powerful military produces about 15,000 missiles and shells per month. Ukraine is blowing through about 5,000 a day. And this is basically as good as it gets in terms of production.
  
  Horseshit!
  A single General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems plant just went from making 14,000 155mm shells each month to 20,000... one single plant!
  
  And this is without taking other things like China/Taiwan into account
  
  Do you honestly have any idea how much military gear and weapons systems we have staged all  around the globe? Staggering amounts of stuff in places you’ve never thought of...
  In one single warehouse on one single base in Korea we have over 8 million M-16’s just sitting there waiting on trigger pullers.
  You are so far out of your lane here it’s pretty pathetic. >
  
  Listen dude, I'm on Ukraine's side. But that's a gross over exaggeration. The support that Ukraine is currently receiving is unsustainable. If the war drags on too long the west won't be able to keep up with the Ukrainian military demand for weapons and other supplies + the world's populations are going to become more and more economically fatigued by the fallout from the war and less inclined to vote for those who support getting involved in it. 
  Not to mention that even though Russian casualties are higher, Russia is able to replace them quickly. Ukraine can't replace their soldiers as effectively because they're already in all hands on deck mode. And the west isn't going to ship troops to them. They're relying incredibly heavily on western weaponry. Simply overwhelming their enemies with sheer numbers and drowning them in Russian corpses has been a strategy the Russians have used in the past and it looks like they're gearing up to do it in Ukraine as well.
  And God forbid this ever drags on long enough for the next US election to roll around. If Trump or DeSantis get elected it's quite likely that US policy towards Ukraine is going to switch from let's help Ukraine to cya Ukraine. Probably cya NATO as well. >
  
  
  The support that Ukraine is currently receiving is unsustainable.
  
  I spent the better part of my adult life in the US Army, anyone who has seen just 10% of the sustainability that one service branch has would laugh at you. 
  We’re just playing around presently, if we went full scale hold my beer the amount of stuff the Ukraine’s would be receiving would begin to cause strategic problems inside Ukraine because they wouldn’t have the ability to move it fast enough. >
  
  Yeah I don't think dude understands we're just supplying older munitions that we've stockpiled for our allies who still operate older tech. And we haven't even gone into full blown production mode, which imo we should just for the hell of it. If Ukraine could actually push Russia back to their borders the amount of damage to the Russian military would be insane. Would take years for them to rebuild their stockpiles and start new production lines. Let alone a vast majority of their IT/programmers/scientist have left the country. Tie that in with the massive corruption we've seen in the Russian military industrial complex and you have a very long time before Russia can stand back on its own feet. 
  I've read that in Russia most every organization doesn't really get paid much/well so they instead turn to bribes, cutting corners, etc to make more $. >
  
  
  And we haven't even gone into full blown production mode, which imo we should just for the hell of it.
  
  It would be epic to witness with current capabilities, the amount of weapons and hardware we could produce would certainly silence the naysayers. >
  
  Agreed. Currently the MIC is keeping the status quo to make profit for their shareholders. If Uncle Sam came knocking tho you'd see some wild shit. >
  
  WW3 is coming. It’s inevitable. Everyone has built up animosity over X,Y,Z over the last 80 years. >
  
  Yeahhhhh but most of us haven’t been alive for the last 80 years, so it isn’t our animosity.Not to say that’s true of everyone, but I’ve learned not to confuse the people with their governments. It’s a Venn Diagram, not two overlapping circles. 
  We must believe in people. For you see, we are not only Redditors of science, we are Redditors of hope. >
  
  Yeah but the people who have, who are in charge, their animosity, that's going to screw us >
  
  A tale as old as time >
  
  Good, fuck em up >
  
  Which one are you talking about? I feel like Israel is just as bad as Iran. The Jewish people have been dicked too many times throughout history and now they're only ever going to elect far right leaders that want to destroy everybody in the area that's not a Jew. >
  
  Israel is building bridges, metaphorically, with its Arab neighbors while Iran is pissing off everyone in the region by funding militia groups. 
  But hey, Israel is the bad guy here, amirite 
  /s. >
  
  Excellent. No matter how shady Israel may be, I still don't want Iran to have nukes. >
  
  If you don't want your neighbour/enemy to acquire nuclear weapons, trying to antagonize and bark at them probably isn't the way, especially when you don't have the capability to do such task. >
  
  Israel does have the capability to do it what are you talking about? >
  
  What capability? Iran is being a thorn in Israel's ass through their allies like Hezoballah, which Israel had issues trying to beat during 2006. Not to mention, Iran ranks higher in the Firepower Index.
  The only success Israel achieved was through Mossad, but Agencies can go only so far. >
  
  If Israel lifts a finger they get their alliance threatened by a bunch of westerners for being mean to be fair >
  
  Good. Iran must not be allowed to become a nuclear state. >
  
  Don't talk ! Act !! >
  
  The sooner the better! >
  
  Seems like if if Iran and Isreal do kick it off it might be a good time for someone to drop some ordinance on some drone factories. I am not saying it’s a good idea mind you it just wouldn’t shock me if it happened. >
  
  I fully support Israel against the Iranian terrorist state.  Do whatever it takes. >
  
  The world is witnessing the horrors Iran's government inflicts on its own citizens for something as petty as not covering up enough or speaking against the government.
  The government is full of fanatics who torture their own people and is on the verge of collapse anyway, make it obviously very unpredictable and dangerous. Those people will have nothing to lose anymore.
  This goverment having wmds and marking the Saudis and israel as their first targets is definitely something to be concerned with.
  the people here still find a way to blame israel for doing everything it possibly can to prevent its people getting erased from reality. 
  How the hell would israel benefit from a war with Iran other than ensuring its safety?
  It is even more absurd for the pro Palestine people here to not support that. Wtf do you thing is going to happen to their precious land after a nuke?
  It's literally a no state solution for the conflict. >
  
  But should Israel have nukes? >
  
  Who’s gonna take them away at this point?  Honestly it stops their neighbors from trying any funny business,  if they could stop being dicks to the Palestinians and wean themselves off US subsidies, they’d be pretty non-controversial >
  
  which is the exact same reason iran should have nukes. israel has destabilized the entire region to promote their own safety.
  the usa greed for oil has made israel a power. >
  
  What oil did USA gain from backing Israel? The opposite happened a lot of oil rich counties restricted oil trades to U.S for their support of Isreal >
  
  Israel terrorizes Palestinians and aren't exactly the "good guys", but stopping Iran from going nuclear is a must. Look how Iran treats its own citizens, kids no less, and imagine what they would do to Israel. >
  
  Alternative title: Israel proves exactly why Iran is developing a Nuclear Deterrent. >
  
  We were allies before their revolution. Our conflict started by Iran's choice, because free Jews contradict their ideology. >
  
  Every Persian Jew I’ve met spoke highly of the culture and people of Iran. When this small minded and backwards theocracy gets toppled it will be a good thing for everyone.