Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East

Yikes, Israel might have just attacked Iran!

1000 replies

SomeWomanSomewhere · 13/06/2025 01:17

This is NOT GOOD news!

Israel has declared a state of emergency, at least six explosions in Tehran.

This is seriously unfunny!

Israel has ZERO strategic depth - Iran has plenty. Nukes: see above, reverse!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
62
PaxAeterna · 13/06/2025 13:03

Vivi0 · 13/06/2025 13:00

They are calling for restraint because no one wants an escalation, obviously.

That doesn’t mean an escalation wouldn’t have been a better scenario, than one that plays out in the future.

But they are critical of the strikes. There are calls for restraint and diplomacy. If it is a “world service” that is being carried out wouldn’t we be hearing Israel has a right to defend itself and so on.

sualipa · 13/06/2025 13:08

Vivi0 · 13/06/2025 12:58

No, your scenario poses a lesser threat.

The greater threat would be this scenario playing out in a post nuclear Iran.

This is Israel’s foreign policy objective, not ours. In fact, toppling Iran would likely increase not reduce the existential threat to the UK. That helps explain the deafening silence across the West. And that's without even considering the potential economic fallout: Iran’s oil fields in flames, and armed groups lashing out at other energy assets across the Middle East. Sometimes, better the devil you know. If the regime falls it won't be some sort of fluffy transfer of power - it would no doubt be a civil war with the baddest guys having most of the weapons.

anotherside · 13/06/2025 13:11

sualipa · 13/06/2025 12:44

China is a threat too, but we’re not launching missiles at them. From what I can gather, like the Russians and Chinese, Iran seems more focused on extending its reach to target refugees and dissidents abroad rather than attacking the UK directly. Obviously, that’s still very concerning, and everything possible should be done to prevent it.

And China would justifiably regard the US and its allies as a threat. Should they be preparing their military to that regard? We throw the word “threat“ around so easily like it gives possible military actions against these countries moral backing. But it’s meaningless. Bombing counties “preemptively” because they might prove an economic/military threat at some point might occasionally work as a geopolitical move, but as soon as you go that path you can know longer pretend you’re the good guys fighting the baddies.

BelleHathor · 13/06/2025 13:14

sualipa · 13/06/2025 13:08

This is Israel’s foreign policy objective, not ours. In fact, toppling Iran would likely increase not reduce the existential threat to the UK. That helps explain the deafening silence across the West. And that's without even considering the potential economic fallout: Iran’s oil fields in flames, and armed groups lashing out at other energy assets across the Middle East. Sometimes, better the devil you know. If the regime falls it won't be some sort of fluffy transfer of power - it would no doubt be a civil war with the baddest guys having most of the weapons.

They shoot first ask questions later. Short termism.

Similar to funding and training Al Qaeda in 1980s to defeat Russia in Afghanistan. Only to end up with 9/11 and US soldiers being killed by the same weapons they supplied.

Also see Libya for all intents a failed state where humans are sold for $50.

European leaders are also aware that destabilising the region again will lead to mass migration to Europe again.....

Insanityisnotastrategy · 13/06/2025 13:14

EasternStandard · 13/06/2025 11:55

Fine to ask this question. A discussion seems sensible, I don’t know the answer. I suspect it’d take extra insight.

Some of these posts, the ‘pesky Iranian’ one for example. There’s a reason MI5 includes Iran in top three on threat.

Oh, it's absolutely a threat. And a despicable regime.

There seem to be posters suggesting people have 'lost sight' of this in a scramble to condemn Israel; I genuinely don't see where this assumption is coming from. Two things can very much be true at the same time.

sualipa · 13/06/2025 13:17

anotherside · 13/06/2025 13:11

And China would justifiably regard the US and its allies as a threat. Should they be preparing their military to that regard? We throw the word “threat“ around so easily like it gives possible military actions against these countries moral backing. But it’s meaningless. Bombing counties “preemptively” because they might prove an economic/military threat at some point might occasionally work as a geopolitical move, but as soon as you go that path you can know longer pretend you’re the good guys fighting the baddies.

Edited

After regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya have we really learned nothing? The truth is, none of us in the current era are wealthy or stable enough to keep projecting power that way. What we absolutely must not do is follow Netanyahu down that same path. He’s on his own let him stay that way.

1dayatatime · 13/06/2025 13:18

So for decades Iran has supported the instability of the Middle East through its proxies such as the Houthis attacking merchant shipping or providing support Hamas enabling it to attack Israel on the 7th October or Hezbollah and their rocket attacks on Israel.

A nuclear armed Iran would be able to continue supporting such instability hiding under a nuclear umbrella knowing that the US would be willing to do a full ground invasion or a regime change. The US would simply be restricted to simple retaliatory bombings after each terrorist attack.

The question to be asked is whether a nuclear armed Iran is a good thing or a bad thing. If it's deemed to be a bad thing and in the absence of either the US, UK or Russia or China being willing to do anything about it then surely the actions of Israel are to be applauded rather than criticised.

anotherside · 13/06/2025 13:20

@sualipa

You seem keen for Trump to condemn the attack, but at this stage what do words actually achieve? Much of the world sees Netanyahu’s Israel as America’s disobedient pet that keeps biting people but which America loves too much to put a muzzle on it, despite disapproving of the behaviour. At this stage, what actual concrete use is another vocal rebuke? It almost makes them look weaker with regard to Netanyahu than were they to issue a strong condemnation.

EasternStandard · 13/06/2025 13:24

Insanityisnotastrategy · 13/06/2025 13:14

Oh, it's absolutely a threat. And a despicable regime.

There seem to be posters suggesting people have 'lost sight' of this in a scramble to condemn Israel; I genuinely don't see where this assumption is coming from. Two things can very much be true at the same time.

I do think some posts downplay the threat. The ones I was responding to for example.

sualipa · 13/06/2025 13:26

1dayatatime · 13/06/2025 13:18

So for decades Iran has supported the instability of the Middle East through its proxies such as the Houthis attacking merchant shipping or providing support Hamas enabling it to attack Israel on the 7th October or Hezbollah and their rocket attacks on Israel.

A nuclear armed Iran would be able to continue supporting such instability hiding under a nuclear umbrella knowing that the US would be willing to do a full ground invasion or a regime change. The US would simply be restricted to simple retaliatory bombings after each terrorist attack.

The question to be asked is whether a nuclear armed Iran is a good thing or a bad thing. If it's deemed to be a bad thing and in the absence of either the US, UK or Russia or China being willing to do anything about it then surely the actions of Israel are to be applauded rather than criticised.

Yes, Iran’s no angel -they've backed dodgy groups, stirred things up through their proxies, and played a messy game in the region. But let’s not kid ourselves that bombing or toppling their regime is going to magically fix any of that. We’ve tried that before in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. How did those turn out? Not great.

Sometimes the devil you know really is better than the chaos that follows. The current Iranian regime is grim, but it still has something to lose. Blow the place apart or collapse the government, and you’ve got armed factions running wild, nuclear materials unaccounted for, and no one picking up the phone when you want to dial things down.

As for the idea that a nuclear Iran would be untouchabl let’s be realistic. Nuclear weapons aren't a free pass. If anything, having them makes countries more cautious, not less. Mutually assured destruction still applies. No one wants to start World War 3.

And applauding Israel for dragging us into that mess? Really? They’re pursuing their interests, not ours. We shouldn’t be blindly following someone else’s foreign policy especially if it risks putting our own country in the firing line or sending oil prices through the roof.

So no, this isn’t about defending Iran. It’s about not blowing up the region (again) just because it feels like “something” should be done. Sometimes doing less is smarter than making things far far worse.

SharonEllis · 13/06/2025 13:27

The apologism for a murderous regime, one of the very worst on the planet is astounding and sickening.

Government statement back in March https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/protecting-national-security

The situation is much worse now. My Jewish and Iranian friends in this country have been acutely aware for a very long time of the real and present danger from Iran and life in Iran is horrific.so no, Iranian leaders are not 'innocent people' and we know for sure the Iranian regime isnt going to suddenly start being nice of its own accord.

Noone on this site has a clue what is the best course of action but there is no evidence that appeasing this horrific, aggressive regime is best yet so many of you are totally convinced. Its ridiculous.

Dan Jarvis MBE MP

Protecting national security

Statement by the Security Minister on new measures to tackle state threats from Iran.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/protecting-national-security

Vivi0 · 13/06/2025 13:29

PaxAeterna · 13/06/2025 13:03

But they are critical of the strikes. There are calls for restraint and diplomacy. If it is a “world service” that is being carried out wouldn’t we be hearing Israel has a right to defend itself and so on.

Of course they are critical of the strikes. What are they supposed to say?

It’s not an unexpected response, is it? They are not going to say “Great job, Israel”.

If it is a “world service” that is being carried out wouldn’t we be hearing Israel has a right to defend itself and so on.

Why would we be hearing that?

Israel isn’t defending itself. This is preemptive.

Iran doesn’t need a nuclear deal.

They don’t need nuclear weapons.

The world doesn’t need any more nuclear powers.

If you think world leaders haven’t given consideration to and had discussions about preventing/sabotaging Iran’s nuclear program, and what their options would look like, then you are very naive.

anotherside · 13/06/2025 13:35

Vivi0 · 13/06/2025 13:29

Of course they are critical of the strikes. What are they supposed to say?

It’s not an unexpected response, is it? They are not going to say “Great job, Israel”.

If it is a “world service” that is being carried out wouldn’t we be hearing Israel has a right to defend itself and so on.

Why would we be hearing that?

Israel isn’t defending itself. This is preemptive.

Iran doesn’t need a nuclear deal.

They don’t need nuclear weapons.

The world doesn’t need any more nuclear powers.

If you think world leaders haven’t given consideration to and had discussions about preventing/sabotaging Iran’s nuclear program, and what their options would look like, then you are very naive.

“The world doesn’t need more nuclear powers”. That’s a meaningless statement. What you actually mean is “the countries which currently have nuclear capability, or feel sufficiently protected by neighbouring countries/allies with existing capability, don’t want any further countries getting nuclear weapons”.
And of course many in the current club are actively hoping to add to their current stockpile.

EasternStandard · 13/06/2025 13:35

Vivi0 · 13/06/2025 13:29

Of course they are critical of the strikes. What are they supposed to say?

It’s not an unexpected response, is it? They are not going to say “Great job, Israel”.

If it is a “world service” that is being carried out wouldn’t we be hearing Israel has a right to defend itself and so on.

Why would we be hearing that?

Israel isn’t defending itself. This is preemptive.

Iran doesn’t need a nuclear deal.

They don’t need nuclear weapons.

The world doesn’t need any more nuclear powers.

If you think world leaders haven’t given consideration to and had discussions about preventing/sabotaging Iran’s nuclear program, and what their options would look like, then you are very naive.

Agree I’m pretty sure discussions on what to do about Iran’s nuclear capability has been discussed. Just not with the public.

GuevarasBeret · 13/06/2025 13:39

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Vivi0 · 13/06/2025 13:39

anotherside · 13/06/2025 13:35

“The world doesn’t need more nuclear powers”. That’s a meaningless statement. What you actually mean is “the countries which currently have nuclear capability, or feel sufficiently protected by neighbouring countries/allies with existing capability, don’t want any further countries getting nuclear weapons”.
And of course many in the current club are actively hoping to add to their current stockpile.

What an absolutely insane response.

The world doesn’t need any more nuclear powers.

Don’t proceed to tell me what I mean, when I’ve already stated that the world should be working towards denuclearisation.

So, what’s your take? That nuclear weapons are just a free for all. That anyone should get them because another country does?

How do you feel about Iran becoming a nuclear power?

anotherside · 13/06/2025 13:39

SharonEllis · 13/06/2025 13:27

The apologism for a murderous regime, one of the very worst on the planet is astounding and sickening.

Government statement back in March https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/protecting-national-security

The situation is much worse now. My Jewish and Iranian friends in this country have been acutely aware for a very long time of the real and present danger from Iran and life in Iran is horrific.so no, Iranian leaders are not 'innocent people' and we know for sure the Iranian regime isnt going to suddenly start being nice of its own accord.

Noone on this site has a clue what is the best course of action but there is no evidence that appeasing this horrific, aggressive regime is best yet so many of you are totally convinced. Its ridiculous.

Is Iran currently commiting genocide like Netanyahu?

“The focus must be relentlessly on the policies of Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli Government, which is made up of extreme far-right elements, who are committing genocide in Gaza right now. Let us call a spade a spade.”
Irish Taoiseach Micháel Martin

www.thejournal.ie/israel-genocide-taoiseach-6717461-May2025/

sualipa · 13/06/2025 13:40

SharonEllis · 13/06/2025 13:27

The apologism for a murderous regime, one of the very worst on the planet is astounding and sickening.

Government statement back in March https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/protecting-national-security

The situation is much worse now. My Jewish and Iranian friends in this country have been acutely aware for a very long time of the real and present danger from Iran and life in Iran is horrific.so no, Iranian leaders are not 'innocent people' and we know for sure the Iranian regime isnt going to suddenly start being nice of its own accord.

Noone on this site has a clue what is the best course of action but there is no evidence that appeasing this horrific, aggressive regime is best yet so many of you are totally convinced. Its ridiculous.

I have seen no apologism you are projecting. I have no time for the mullahs, they have done terrible things and meddled in affairs they would have been best advised to stay out of. But in the UK we don't have a dog in this fight and should stay well clear and besides this has been a long time brewing.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv87ekPeIuk

TranceNation · 13/06/2025 13:41

I'm beyond fed up with geopolitics. This is going to further drive up global energy prices now let alone all the usual deaths, displacement and misery of those directly caught up in this conflict.

BelleHathor · 13/06/2025 13:42

anotherside · 13/06/2025 13:35

“The world doesn’t need more nuclear powers”. That’s a meaningless statement. What you actually mean is “the countries which currently have nuclear capability, or feel sufficiently protected by neighbouring countries/allies with existing capability, don’t want any further countries getting nuclear weapons”.
And of course many in the current club are actively hoping to add to their current stockpile.

Including Israel that has an estimated 90 to 200+ nukes obtained via stealing American uranium and assisted by France to weaponise. Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear non proliferation Treaty nor subject to inspections.

But, something something about dictatorship regimes.

EasternStandard · 13/06/2025 13:43

1dayatatime · 13/06/2025 13:18

So for decades Iran has supported the instability of the Middle East through its proxies such as the Houthis attacking merchant shipping or providing support Hamas enabling it to attack Israel on the 7th October or Hezbollah and their rocket attacks on Israel.

A nuclear armed Iran would be able to continue supporting such instability hiding under a nuclear umbrella knowing that the US would be willing to do a full ground invasion or a regime change. The US would simply be restricted to simple retaliatory bombings after each terrorist attack.

The question to be asked is whether a nuclear armed Iran is a good thing or a bad thing. If it's deemed to be a bad thing and in the absence of either the US, UK or Russia or China being willing to do anything about it then surely the actions of Israel are to be applauded rather than criticised.

Yes that’s a top priority question. Is Iran having nuclear weapons good or bad?

Vivi0 · 13/06/2025 13:47

BelleHathor · 13/06/2025 13:42

Including Israel that has an estimated 90 to 200+ nukes obtained via stealing American uranium and assisted by France to weaponise. Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear non proliferation Treaty nor subject to inspections.

But, something something about dictatorship regimes.

Yeah, you’re right.

Israel became a nuclear power 70 years ago. Never once used a nuclear weapon. So let’s just hand them out to dictatorship regimes like Iran.

It’s only fair, right?

BelleHathor · 13/06/2025 13:49

Well in 2011 Professor John Mearsheimer argued that Iran having nukes would bring balance to the region.

https://x.com/ricwe123/status/1932917423927414981

I tend to agree with his analysis. The amount of "regime changes" or "exporting democracy" carried out in the region has led to the death and displacement of millions. The people are tired.

As someone said about America "Just go home, why are you 4000 miles away causing problems here".

https://x.com/ricwe123/status/1932917423927414981

sualipa · 13/06/2025 13:50

EasternStandard · 13/06/2025 13:43

Yes that’s a top priority question. Is Iran having nuclear weapons good or bad?

In today’s world, there’s an air of inevitability about developed states acquiring nuclear weapons if they truly want them, especially given how many already possess them or have credible ambitions to do so. That said, as I’ve mentioned before, Israel should fight its own battles. After Gaza, it’s time they found their own way in the world without constantly expecting others to come to their rescue. Things are difficult enough here at home without taking on more problems from conflicts thousands of miles away which we didn't start and should have no desire to be part of.

EasternStandard · 13/06/2025 13:53

BelleHathor · 13/06/2025 13:42

Including Israel that has an estimated 90 to 200+ nukes obtained via stealing American uranium and assisted by France to weaponise. Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear non proliferation Treaty nor subject to inspections.

But, something something about dictatorship regimes.

This is the type of post I mean. The something something about Iran.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread