The US has bombed Fordow and other sites.

One of the most accurate analysis of the situation 👏

Every country in the world has a right to develop their own weapons.
Have you forgotten this was the same lie sold to invade Iraq.

It could do yet.

I wish I could be optimistic about these ceasefires but they seem to be fairly pointless nowadays. Israel has recently broken other ceasefires so this is no surprise, unfortunately.
If it was a two sided breaking of the ceasefire, they are both at fault, but we have no evidence of that as yet.

The breach of the ceasefire is a shame, whoever did it, damn them. There was a chance of peace. Let's hope it holds, somehow.
For once, Trump is right to be well disappointed.
Whether anyone can contain what has been started, we can only hope, wish or pray.

That may be your interpretation of Iran's wishes and many would agree with you and others would partially agree.

But you have entirely left out the facts wrt Israel and their genocidal actions in Gaza, their multiple, unprovoked attacks on many other countries in the region, including, most recently Iran itself. How many countries are they fighting now? Is it 5? They have just agreed to a ceasefire and broken it within a few hours (no evidence that Iran has launched missiles that I have seen and their actions in the last few days suggest that they have not).
They have proclaimed that they want to achieve regime change in Iran and assassinate their supreme leader. Israel also has nuclear weapons and declines all inspections, whereas Iran has agreed to inspections and complied with them, up until the recent disagreement with the IEAE. Israel has only been allowed to get away with appalling violence and aggression, even to the point of deliberately starving the population in Gaza because they have the backing of the US and a blind eye has been turned again and again.
Can we have some balance please?

Whereas Israel who are bombing Lebanon despite agreeing to a ceasefire, bombing Yemen, have invaded and are violently occupying Syria, are bombing Iran, committing atrocities in the West Bank and shooting starving people in Gaza, violating international law in all of those areas are a shining beacon of light in the Middle East desperately working towards peace.

Iran and its proxies, including the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah, seek to plunge the region into a future of endless hatred and violence. They want their cult of death to indoctrinate the minds of yet another generation.

And they want to deny Israelis, Palestinians, and a host of Arab states the ability to advance a future of further integration, prosperity, and coexistence across the region.
They should not allowed to succeed.

Agreed, but in fairness both China and Russia are justifying actual or proposed invasions on the grounds that "this is our country anyway" (Ukraine, Tibet, Taiwan, middle-eastern European countries). So far they don't seem to need the excuse/reason that there is 'undisclosed evidence'.

@Ilovelifeverymuch "It was obvious neither Russia nor China will enter a war with the US for Iran, Iran is just not worth it". In the short term this is true, but what Israeli and US show is that those with power can ignore with impunity the (admittedly very imperfect) systems set up last century to try and prevent another global conflict. This now sets a precedent for the likes of China and Russia to act against other countries on undisclosed "evidence" to supposedly protect their own without the involvement of any of the UN or other international mechanisms.

In response to your earlier comment: Lifesd · 22/06/2025 01:30
"Good I hope the operation has been successful and irans nuclear capability has been destroyed. Iran is a threat to the west - I don’t think we should be involved in regime change (particularly after disastrous interventions in Lebanon and Syria but I support this action." My response: I’m interested in understanding the logic behind how these strikes have a) made it easier to track Iran’s nuclear capability, and b) increased the likelihood of a leadership change in Iran. Given the complexity of the situation, I’d appreciate any evidence or analysis that supports these outcomes.

Well that didn't take Iran long to break the ceasefire agreement.

I struggle to see the argument here. When Trump took office in 2017, the JCPOA had already eliminated 98% of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile and capped enrichment at 3.67%, well below weapons-grade levels. The deal was designed precisely to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

When Trump tore up the JCPOA, he didn’t replace it with a better alternative—there was no new agreement, no diplomatic framework, just “maximum pressure” sanctions and threats. This approach hasn’t prevented Iran’s nuclear progress; instead, it has increased tensions and reduced the leverage for peaceful resolution.

Not only that but there seems to be a high chance that Russia has been trading military tech with Iran; it got the Shahad drone tech from Iran in exchange for ... what? Russia's given nuclear tech to N Korea so it seems not unlikely that something similar has happened with Iran.

Plus Peskov has suggested that some countries could give nuclear bombs to Iran, apparently 🙄

I don’t think anyone genuinely concerned with peace is “disappointed” by a ceasefire. What some are critical of isn’t the ceasefire itself—it’s the path that led us here, and the longer-term consequences that may follow.

Questioning Western actions, especially when they involve bombing internationally monitored nuclear sites or entangling the U.S. more deeply in volatile regional politics, isn’t anti-West—it’s democratic accountability. Strategic missteps should be examined, not glossed over.

I’m also genuinely struggling to understand the logic behind Trump choosing to enter the war directly. What strategic goal does it serve? It’s hard to see how this action enhances U.S. security—or regional stability—when it risks escalating an already volatile situation and weakens diplomatic options going forward.

Even if Iran chooses not to escalate further, turmoil is almost guaranteed—not just within Iran, but across the region and globally. The U.S. strike risks triggering broader consequences. Russia and China may now feel emboldened to justify future aggression by pointing to this as yet another example of unchecked great power behaviour.

This week’s NATO summit will be revealing. While U.S. allies may express support in public, behind closed doors there will likely be renewed concerns about America’s reliability and Trump’s judgment—especially regarding Article 5. Meanwhile, the U.S. is now more deeply entangled in the Middle East, reducing its capacity to focus strategically elsewhere, particularly in the Indo-Pacific.

If strategists in Washington and Tel Aviv had calculated that airstrikes would exert irresistible pressure on the Iranian leadership, many Iranian analysts suggest the opposite. Nationalist sentiment has risen sharply. Even among those who oppose the Islamic Republic, there's a growing sense that the attack was unjust—and that it aims to diminish Iran as a nation. External threats often unify even the most divided societies. The strikes may have weakened the regime militarily, but politically, they could be exactly what helps consolidate its grip.

Airstrikes may offer a temporary show of strength, but history—from WWII to Kosovo—shows their limited value in achieving lasting political outcomes. Meanwhile, unresolved crises like Gaza resurface, and Washington becomes even more closely bound to Israeli policy decisions—despite increasing uncertainty about whether Israel’s trajectory is driven by a desire for security or regional dominance.

The deeper concern is that the Trump administration appears fundamentally unprepared for the level of strategic thinking this moment demands. There is no clear consensus, no continuity in expertise, and—most crucially—no defined political objective guiding U.S. military actions.

Yawn. Another disingenuous attempt to suggest we are in the "latter days". The Jeremiah quote relates to Elam which was a small area of what is now Iran. The Elamites were considered skilled archers and that's why the bow is described as being broken. After attacks by the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians the Elamites were defeated and the area absorbed. This all happened several hundred years BCE. Desperate Christianity will claim anything if it thinks it will justify their cause.

Yes that would indeed be great. But civilians should never be punished for the actions of their government- the withholding of food is against international law. My thinking is sophisticated enough to recognize that both Hamas and the Israeli Government are at fault. Do you really think this continued punishment of the Gazan population will promote peace? The conditions in Gaza are beyond horrific- I don’t believe anyone can actually really think this is acc. The Israeli population will be the losers in this long term too. but I don’t believe peace is Netanyahu’s primary concern.

You do realise Netanyahu has been claiming Iran is “weeks away” from a bomb for nearly two decades—claims that have been repeatedly contradicted by both the IAEA and U.S. intelligence. And you do realise it was Israel that initiated the most recent strikes—targeting safeguarded nuclear facilities that were under international inspection.

Your framing is overly simplistic and ignores decades of regional history, shifting power dynamics, and provocations on both sides. Israel has conducted numerous preemptive strikes, assassinations, and covert operations across sovereign borders. To suggest this is purely one-sided—Israel defending, Iran attacking—is simply not supported by the facts.

The idea that one side is purely defensive and the other purely genocidal flattens the complexity of the conflict. Both governments have made destructive choices. Neither escalation nor dehumanisation brings us any closer to peace or lasting security—for Israelis, Iranians, or anyone in the region.

There are urgent, serious questions to grapple with—especially, “what now?” Statements like yours don’t contribute to that discussion. They deflect from the hard truths that need confronting—on all sides.

What action by Iran specifically logically justifies the defence argument?

Israel attack to defend themselves.
Iran just wants to kill Jews and eradicate Israel.
They are not the same.

If only Hamas had the common sense of the Iranian leaders.
Give back the hostages, surrender and disband, the war would have ended.
They lost the war on October 8th. They have been crying genocide ever since. They have dragged this out, and it’s the people of Gaza who pay the price.
Hamas cannot win, they never could, they will not be allowed to drag Gaza back into the forever war, the terrorists next door.
Hamas could end the war today.

You do realise you could just as easily swap “Iran” and “Israel" in that final sentence. It’s disingenuous to present this as a one-sided problem. Simplifying it like this doesn't help anyone understand the actual risks—or solutions.