[tehjoker]

Iran has no nuclear weapons. The administration simply wishes to prevent Israel from facing opponents that also have a nuclear deterrent (Israel has nuclear landmines, briefcases, missiles, and neutron bombs according to Sy Hersh). A deterrent would radically curb Israeli aggression and maybe even end the genocide in Gaza. There is little risk Iran would use a nuclear weapon. This is pure western aggression.

[fatbird]

Sy Hersh hasn't been credible for a long time. We know Israel has a variety of nuclear weapons, but don't trust anything Hersh asserts without credible independent support.

Agree with the rest of your point.

[Sabinus]

How does an Iranian nuke curb Israeli aggression or change Israel's behaviour in Gaza? The vast majority of Israel's 'aggression' is against armed groups in neighbouring countries that Iran funds. If a country has a peace treaty with Israel and the monopoly on violence in their territory, they experience no Israeli aggression.

Iran can't credibly threaten to nuke Israel over a threat that isn't existential to Iran. And Hezbollah or Hamas being bombed (along with a lot of civilians) is is not that.

[za3faran]

Israel has been committing war crime after war crime as far back since it started: https://www.reddit.com/r/israelexposed/

[Sabinus]

What's your point? Iran can't credibly threaten to nuke Israel over war crimes.

[za3faran]

Let's be realistic, they're not going to nuke them. It's much more likely for israel to use nukes (read about the Samson option).

[tehjoker]

America extends a nuclear umbrella, so can other nuclear powers. You say it's not credible. Would you wanna bet your life on it?

> If a country has a peace treaty with Israel and the monopoly on violence in their territory, they experience no Israeli aggression.

Doha called about the Israeli bombing of the peace talks with the Palestinian resistance.

https://imemc.org/article/israel-bombs-palestinian-negotiato...