Israel’s defense minister warned Saturday that “Tehran will burn” if Iran continues firing missiles, as the two countries traded blows a day after Israel launched a blistering surprise attack on Iranian nuclear and military sites, killing several top generals.
Israel’s military said the strikes also killed nine senior scientists and experts involved in Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s U.N. ambassador said 78 people were killed and more than 320 wounded.
Iran retaliated by launching waves of drones and ballistic missiles at Israel, where explosions lit the night skies over Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and shook buildings. The Israeli military urged civilians, already rattled by 20 months of war in Gaza sparked by Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, to head to shelter for hours. Health officials said three people were killed and dozens wounded.
Sure, but don’t pretend it’s just for civilian nuclear power, that’s all.
A) There is no second source verifiable proof it’s for weapons. Only “super secret promises of proof” by the same people that printed claims hamas has bunkers under hospitals.
B) They should have weapons. After all, Israel does.
C) There have been no indications of testing, something verifiable and easily seen, something necessary to make weapons.
If you think they should have the weapons, why are you so reluctant to believe that they are trying to build them? Pick a lane:
A) Iran would never attempt to build nuclear weapons.
B) Iran has a duty to build nuclear weapons.
PS: btw, I haven’t made my mind up on whether they should have the right to them or not (if Pakistan/Israel can have them, these guys can too I guess, but that’s too late to fix now), but I bet that all UNSC members and most countries in the UN breathed a sigh of relief at what Israel did (it’s just less shit to deal with), even if it was illegal and everyone did their usual theatric posturing for and against the attack.
I think both can be true. It start with one, then US withdraw from an agreement, thanks to Trump, and now trust in the US government specifically after the escalated genocide in Gaza, will be down and they have to Build it to protect themselves.
You can’t hold both at the same time, especially as they’re arguing that Iran couldn’t possibly be building nukes at this point by suggesting that the BBC reference to the report must be false. What you are saying is that Iran is justified in switching from A to B, which I can understand.
Why do you mention “duty”? there is no obligation. I simply mean that they are a state capable of deciding their own path.
How does that describe duty in the form of obligation?
e.g. “You should pick up the trash.”