(06-16-2025, 04:03 AM)EndtheMadnessNow Wrote: Must be the mothership of F35's. LOL.

(06-16-2025, 06:12 PM)Ninurta Wrote:

(06-16-2025, 04:03 AM)EndtheMadnessNow Wrote: Must be the mothership of F35's. LOL.

Dayum! Judging by the size of the ants crawling around it, that thing's got cockpit space for a crew of 10 or 12! Is that the doomsday refit of an F-35?

.

(06-16-2025, 08:50 PM)BIAD Wrote: Well, it looks real to me... Er.

Quote:Israeli tanks kill 51 people waiting for aid in Gaza, Hamas-run health ministry says

The Israel Defence Forces claims it "regrets any harm to uninvolved individuals and operates to minimise harm as much as possible"

Israeli tank shellfire has killed at least 51 Palestinians in Khan Younis, according to the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza.
Hundreds of others have been injured, with "dozens of critical cases" arriving at a medical complex.

It is feared that the number of people killed will rise.
https://news.sky.com/story/45-people-killed-in-israeli-strikes-on-khan-younis-says-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry-13384815

(06-17-2025, 03:56 PM)gortex Wrote: Poor Israel , always the victim.

More Palestinian civilians killed today by the war criminal Netanyahu , hundreds left injured.


His Bloodlust knows no end.

Quote:The "end game" of the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict, which escalated into open warfare in June 2025, remains uncertain and highly contested, with multiple possible outcomes depending on the strategic goals, actions, and responses of both nations, as well as external actors like the United States and regional powers. Based on available information, here are the key perspectives on potential end games, drawing from Israeli objectives, Iranian responses, and broader geopolitical dynamics:

Israeli Objectives and Potential End Game

Israel's primary stated goal, as articulated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is to neutralize Iran's nuclear program, which Israel views as an existential threat. Operation Rising Lion, launched on June 12, 2025, targeted Iran's nuclear facilities (e.g., Natanz and Esfahan), military infrastructure, and key commanders to degrade Iran's capacity to develop nuclear weapons. Beyond this, some sources suggest Israel may be pursuing a broader, more ambitious end game: regime change in Iran.

Nuclear Program Dismantlement: Israel aims to set back Iran's nuclear capabilities significantly, with Netanyahu claiming the strikes have delayed Iran's program "a very, very long time." Success would mean preventing Iran from achieving nuclear weaponization for years, potentially through sustained military pressure or a diplomatic deal enforcing strict limits on Iran's nuclear activities.

[All it is likely to do is just kick the can down the road and in 10 or so years we'll be right back to air strikes.]

Regime Change or Weakening: Netanyahu's public appeals to the Iranian people to rise against their "evil and oppressive regime" suggest an aspiration to destabilize or topple the Islamic Republic. This could involve leveraging internal discontent—evidenced by past protests like the 2022 "Woman, Life, Freedom" movement—through military and psychological pressure, such as targeting key figures like IRGC commanders and nuclear scientists. However, analysts warn that regime change is a gamble, as Iranian opposition groups are fragmented, and a collapse could lead to chaos rather than a pro-Israel government.

Regional Hegemony: By weakening Iran and its "Axis of Resistance" (Hamas, Hezbollah, Syrian allies, and Houthis), Israel seeks to cement its dominance in the Middle East. The dismantling of Iran's proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria since 2023 has already shifted the regional balance, enabling Israel’s direct strikes on Iran. A successful end game could see Iran isolated, its regional influence curtailed, and Israel unchallenged as the dominant military power.

Iranian Objectives and Potential End Game

Iran's response has focused on retaliation and deterrence, launching missile and drone attacks on Israeli cities like Tel Aviv and Haifa under Operation True Promise III. Iran's end game appears to prioritize regime survival, maintaining regional influence, and avoiding a broader war that could involve the U.S.

Tit-for-Tat Retaliation: Iran aims to demonstrate resilience by striking back, causing significant damage in Israel (e.g., hitting residential areas and oil infrastructure). This signals to Israel and domestic audiences that Iran can impose costs, potentially deterring further escalation. However, Iran's weakened proxies limit its ability to sustain a prolonged conflict.

Diplomatic Off-Ramp: Iran has signaled openness to de-escalation if Israeli strikes cease, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stating Iran would reciprocate a halt in hostilities. Returning to nuclear talks with the U.S. could be a face-saving way to end the conflict, though this risks appearing as capitulation.

Nuclear Weaponization as Deterrence: Some analysts warn that Israel's strikes could push Iran to accelerate its nuclear program, aiming for a bomb as a deterrent against future attacks. This is risky, as it could provoke further Israeli or U.S. intervention, but it aligns with Iran’s long-term goal of strategic self-sufficiency.

Broader Scenarios for the Conflict’s Resolution

The conflict’s trajectory depends on several factors, including the extent of damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities, Iran’s retaliatory effectiveness, and international pressure. Possible end games include:

Israeli Victory and Iranian Concession: Israel achieves significant degradation of Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure, forcing Iran into a diplomatic deal with the U.S. to limit its nuclear program. This could stabilize the region temporarily but risks long-term Iranian resentment and rearmament.

Stalemate and Ceasefire: Both sides exhaust their immediate military options, leading to a U.S.-brokered ceasefire or tacit de-escalation. This preserves the status quo, with Iran’s nuclear program delayed but not eliminated, and both nations continuing their rivalry through proxies.

Regime Collapse in Iran: Israel’s strikes trigger internal unrest, leading to the fall of the Islamic Republic. This is unlikely in the short term, as Iranians may rally against external aggression, and opposition groups lack cohesion. Chaos or a harder-line regime could emerge, potentially worsening regional instability.

Regional War: Escalation draws in the U.S., Arab states, or other actors, leading to a broader conflict. This is the least desired outcome, as it could disrupt global energy markets and cause massive casualties. U.S. reluctance to engage militarily and Iran’s weakened proxies reduce this risk, but miscalculations could spiral.

Iranian Nuclear Breakout: Iran responds by racing toward a nuclear weapon, prompting preemptive U.S. or Israeli strikes. This could lead to a prolonged war of attrition or a negotiated settlement under extreme pressure.

Critical Uncertainties

U.S. Role: President Trump’s mixed signals—praising Israel’s strikes while pushing for a deal—create ambiguity. The U.S. has provided defensive support (e.g., intercepting Iranian missiles) but vetoed extreme Israeli plans like assassinating Ayatollah Khamenei. Trump’s leverage over Israel and willingness to pressure Netanyahu are unclear.

Iranian Resilience: The loss of key commanders (e.g., IRGC chief Hossein Salami and Mohammad Bagheri) and damage to nuclear sites (e.g., Natanz’s centrifuges) weaken Iran, but its ability to sustain missile attacks and rebuild remains uncertain.

Public Reaction in Iran: While economic hardship and repression fuel discontent, Israeli attacks may rally Iranians around the regime out of nationalism.

International Pressure: G7 leaders and the UN urge de-escalation, but their influence is limited. Arab states quietly support Israel’s actions against Iran but fear regional fallout.

Conclusion

Israel’s end game likely combines destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities with weakening or toppling its regime, aiming for long-term regional dominance. Iran seeks to survive, retaliate, and preserve its regional influence, potentially through diplomacy or nuclear escalation. The most probable near-term outcome is a stalemate with a fragile ceasefire, as neither side can sustain indefinite warfare, and external actors like the U.S. push for de-escalation. However, without a clear exit strategy, the conflict risks becoming a war of attrition, with devastating consequences for both nations and the region.

Given the complexity and ongoing nature of the conflict, no single end game is guaranteed, and miscalculations could shift the outcome toward broader war or unexpected political shifts in Iran. For the latest developments, monitoring credible sources like Reuters, BBC, or the Institute for the Study of War is advisable.

(06-18-2025, 12:24 PM)BIAD Wrote: Well, it looks real to me... Er.

Quote:Israel’s military warns people to evacuate the area around Iran’s Arak heavy water reactor

The Arak heavy water reactor is 250 kilometers (155 miles) southwest of Tehran.

Heavy water helps cool nuclear reactors, but it produces plutonium as a byproduct that can potentially be used in nuclear weapons. That would provide Iran another path to the bomb beyond enriched uranium, should it choose to pursue the weapon.

Iran had agreed under its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers to redesign the facility to relieve proliferation concerns.

In 2019, Iran started up the heavy water reactor’s secondary circuit, which at the time did not violate Tehran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers.

Britain at the time was helping Iran redesign the Arak reactor to limit the amount of plutonium it produces, stepping in for the U.S., which had withdrawn from the project after President Donald Trump’s decision in 2018 to unilaterally withdraw America from the nuclear deal.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, has been urging Israel not to strike Iranian nuclear sites. IAEA inspectors reportedly last visited Arak on May 14.

Due to restrictions Iran imposed on inspectors, the IAEA has said it lost “continuity of knowledge” about Iran’s heavy water production -- meaning it could not absolutely verify Tehran’s production and stockpile.

As part of negotiations around the 2015 deal, Iran agreed to sell off its heavy water to the West to remain in compliance with the accord’s terms. Even the U.S. purchased some 32 tons of heavy water for over $8 million in one deal. That was one issue that drew criticism from opponents to the deal.

Quote:Natanz enrichment facility

Iran’s nuclear facility at Natanz, located some 220 kilometers (135 miles) southeast of Tehran, is the country’s main enrichment site. Part of the facility on Iran’s Central Plateau is underground to defend against potential airstrikes. It operates multiple cascades, or groups of centrifuges working together to more quickly enrich uranium. Iran also is burrowing into the Kūh-e Kolang Gaz Lā, or “Pickaxe Mountain,” which is just beyond Natanz’s southern fencing. Natanz has been targeted by the Stuxnet virus, believed to be an Israeli and American creation, which destroyed Iranian centrifuges. Two separate sabotage attacks, attributed to Israel, also have struck the facility.

Fordo enrichment facility

Iran’s nuclear facility at Fordo is located some 100 kilometers (60 miles) southwest of Tehran. It also hosts centrifuge cascades, but isn’t as big a facility as Natanz. Buried under a mountain and protected by anti-aircraft batteries, Fordo appears designed to withstand airstrikes. Its construction began at least in 2007, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, although Iran only informed the U.N. nuclear watchdog about the facility in 2009 after the U.S. and allied Western intelligence agencies became aware of its existence.

Bushehr nuclear power plant

Iran’s only commercial nuclear power plant is in Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, some 750 kilometers (465 miles) south of Tehran. Construction on the plant began under Iran’s Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the mid-1970s. After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the plant was repeatedly targeted in the Iran-Iraq war. Russia later completed construction of the facility. Iran is building two other reactors like it at the site. Bushehr is fueled by uranium produced in Russia, not Iran, and is monitored by the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency.

Arak heavy water reactor

The Arak heavy water reactor is 250 kilometers (155 miles) southwest of Tehran. Heavy water helps cool nuclear reactors, but it produces plutonium as a byproduct that can potentially be used in nuclear weapons. That would provide Iran another path to the bomb beyond enriched uranium, should it choose to pursue the weapon. Iran had agreed under its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers to redesign the facility to relieve proliferation concerns.

Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center

The facility in Isfahan, some 350 kilometers (215 miles) southeast of Tehran, employs thousands of nuclear scientists. It also is home to three Chinese research reactors and laboratories associated with the country’s atomic program.

Tehran Research Reactor

The Tehran Research Reactor is at the headquarters of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, the civilian body overseeing the country’s atomic program. The U.S. actually provided Iran the reactor in 1967 as part of America’s “Atoms for Peace” program during the Cold War. It initially required highly enriched uranium but was later retrofitted to use low-enriched uranium over proliferation concerns.

Iran has several major nuclear program sites, now the subject of negotiations with the US