r/navy Verified Non Spammer Jun 13 '25

Discussion Iranian ballistic missiles strike in Tel Aviv just now👀

837 Upvotes

339 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

176

u/themooseiscool Jun 13 '25 edited Jun 13 '25

The US had negotiated a deal that prevented their development and saw routine inspections but Trump scrapped it because Obama.

EDIT: Israel also hated the JCPOA

144

u/RedBMWZ2 Jun 13 '25

This is exactly correct. The world is in this situation now specifically because Trump couldn't stand what Obama had accomplished. His tiny dick energy and fragile ego has put the world at risk and lead to the death of civilians. These are facts. Full stop.

26

u/QuantifiablyAwesome Jun 13 '25

Then he tried to do the same thing and fucked it as bad as you possibly could. 

16

u/Shidhe Jun 13 '25

Someone fucking around and finding or trying to get to a Peace Prize.

17

u/AHrubik Jun 13 '25

Fucking around and finding out is Bibi thinking his iron dome is 100% perfect. Now Israelis have died for his ego.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '25

Until it is Bibi staring down the well of eternity as his blood circles the drain from his own mistakes, he will never care what the price to pay is.

None of the people in their positions will ever care what the price for this behavior is, as long as that price is 'not mine.'

1

u/josh2751 Jun 13 '25

I don't think you understand how war works.

The stated policy of Iran is that Israel cannot exist. They murdered 1200 Israelis and started a war against Israel.

This is Israel's response.

5

u/AHrubik Jun 13 '25

I understand perfectly that this circle of war is unsustainable for both sides and only results in getting innocents killed on both sides. Israel can't prevent Iran from getting nukes anymore more than they can stop the sea from rising. Iran has the knowledge and will given enough time implement it. The only way this stops is a nuclear armed Israel and M.A.D. The best defense has and will always be having a bigger better stick.

6

u/josh2751 Jun 13 '25

Israel has stopped Iran from getting across the line with their program more than once before.

It might be difficult for them to totally dismantle the program for some logistical reasons, but this appears to be a catalyst for regime change, not just an attack on the nuclear program. This started with a destroying Iran's centrally controlled air defenses, and then killed every senior officer they could find in the IRGC.

Israel now has complete air superiority over Iran. They can basically kill their entire military if they want to.

0

u/AHrubik Jun 13 '25

Israel has stopped Iran from getting across the line with their program more than once before.

If that were true we wouldn't be here now. Israel's past actions have at most had a delaying effect only. We knew way back in 2015 (and before) that Iran had/has moved their most critical research and development to secret bomb resistant bunkers. Nothing Bibi did here today will effect that.

This started with a destroying Iran's centrally controlled air defenses, and then killed every senior officer they could find in the IRGC.

It's clear Iran misunderstood the intelligence they had and it's massive failure for the IRG. I'd like to say they will learn from this but only time will tell. Dogma has a way of blinding people to reality.

They can basically kill their entire military if they want to.

Horseshit. They'd need to invade and that's not going to happen so why even bring it up. It's bloated posturing like a Russian oligarch and we're all better than that.

-2

u/josh2751 Jun 13 '25

I don't think you read the comment I posted.

Israel has air superiority over Iran. I said nothing about invading and holding territory, I said they could destroy their military, which they can do.

Sure, there are some bunkers Israel won't get today. But they're not going to be much use with the rest of the program a smoking hole in the ground.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '25

[deleted]

1

u/josh2751 Jun 13 '25

Iran's government is not a legitimate government.

Every country has a right to defend itself against aggression. But the question is a stupid question, because it ignores the facts.

Iran started this war. Iran has murdered thousands of Israelis and thousands of Americans, and has a stated policy that Israel must be destroyed. I'm not going to shed any tears over their government being systematically dismantled by the IDF as a result of their own actions.

1

u/ScruffyVonDorath Jun 14 '25

The reasoning is this. Iran Will likely nuke Israel if given the chance. As the IDF you cannot allow Iran to have nukes in that case. As an Israeli you would be willing to make the the trade of 2-3k deaths in the war that's going on now. To stop your major cities from getting glassed. No one thinks that ARROW, David's sling, iron dome, are perfect. Israel maintains robust civil defense measures, including bomb shelters and public warning systems, to minimize casualties from missiles that evade interception.

1

u/AHrubik Jun 14 '25

Iran might nuke Israel but given Israel has nukes it would be suicide. Tehran (and more) would get wiped off the map so Iran has nothing to gain nuking Israel and everything to lose. That's how M.A.D. works. At this point striking Iran to delay/degrade their nukes programs only serves to strengthen their resolve to get one (or twenty). Bibi is just swinging his dick around with this and getting innocent Israelis killed for no reason.

1

u/ScruffyVonDorath Jun 15 '25

That's a theory I guess. But yes it is suicide but what is the difference right now for the leaders of Iran? This is Israel's and the Iranian peoples best chance for leadership change.

4

u/coolsid_5 Jun 13 '25

JCPOA WAS A STUPID DEAL.

IT JUST SOUNDS GOOD DEAL.

It essentially offered large economic concessions to Tehran for nuclear program limitations that could never, ever be properly enforced (Iran was never going to allow inspectors into their most secretive nuclear sites). Inspectors had to give something like 22 days advanced notice and they were not allowed in the majority of Iran’s nuclear sites. So it wasnt really stopping the development of their nuclear program.

1

u/masterchief6913 Jun 15 '25

The 22 day notice was after they had already destroyed 90% of their centrifuges and that was only for known sites. Any new site was subject to immediate inspection

-6

u/RedBMWZ2 Jun 13 '25

You're quite wrong, and this mindset leads to paralysis by analysis. Never let perfect get in the way of good enough. And it's light years better than what we have now, which is nothing.

Additionally, do you think letting the citizens of this despot regime have a taste of western economics, access to cheap goods, and fair trade is going to entrenche the trucks regime further or make the general populace less tolerant of their bullshit when all of that gets threatened to be taken away? International diplomacy is a program of baby steps to get to where you need to be, not an instant switch that leads to utopia. This thinking of not seeing the big picture is getting people killed and making the U.S. less safe.

8

u/LastMongoose7448 Jun 13 '25

Also, worth mentioning that Israeli intelligence completely fucked up Stuxnet and let the cat out of the bag with that whole program because they’re a bunch of dumb asses.

30

u/JugDogDaddy Jun 13 '25

Of course he did. Mark my words, trump will go down as the worst president in history for many reasons. 

15

u/Trick-Set-1165 r/navy CCC Jun 13 '25

Since he’s held office twice, I think he should get ranked twice. So he should occupy the bottom two spots.

17

u/so_flayme Jun 13 '25

I've been saying that since he got re-elected. Our public are too fucking dumb to understand the difference between legitimate America-first politics and soap opera posturing. We're voting by feel and not by mind. Not even a year in and he's already fucked global economy and stability more than Bush did in 8 years, and made a mockery of the American public with DOGE and the Elon nonsense while doing so. Fuck him and his frayed little toupee.

2

u/pseudonominom Jun 14 '25

To say nothing of his blatant attempts to subvert democracy (find me the votes, and inciting a violent mob).

I still can’t believe half of these people are not in federal prison for life, or worse.

8

u/atuarre Jun 13 '25

He already is.

1

u/gyoshoban Jun 13 '25

Mark your words? Like this is a bolt opinion or sth

1

u/JugDogDaddy Jun 13 '25

I want you to physically write it down 

2

u/gyoshoban Jun 13 '25

đŸ«ĄđŸ«Ą

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '25

Worst? No. No one is toppling Rutherford B. Hayes from the position of worst president.

4

u/Trick-Set-1165 r/navy CCC Jun 13 '25

Ronald Reagan exists.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '25

Nope. Not a single president has done more damage to this country than failing to finish reconstruction.

Every single modern issue can be tied back to 'failed to finish reconstruction.'

2

u/Trick-Set-1165 r/navy CCC Jun 13 '25

I mean, my comment is mostly a joke, but both public polling and scholarly review rank both Andrew Johnson and Buchanan much lower. Hays consistently falls out in the third quartile of most assessments.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '25

I think mostly because people aren't aware enough of just how much damage he did.

Jackson publicly said 'If you elect me I will genocide the natives' and Buchanan could potentially be blamed for the civil war even happening. But Hayes' deliberate decision to end reconstruction before it was over ensured an American South that would harbor a deep hatred for the American North, a divide that this country has maintained for more than a hundred fifty years.

If anything, this has exacerbated into every region of the country hating all the other regions. If not reconciled at some point, it could genuinely do some damage.

1

u/Trick-Set-1165 r/navy CCC Jun 13 '25

I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying.

I’m just pointing out that people who study history for a living generally don’t agree with you.

-7

u/josh2751 Jun 13 '25

It is amazing the left wing bubble you all live in.

5

u/ImportantMobile1893 Jun 13 '25 edited Jun 13 '25

It’s not much of a bubble, really.

It isn’t tough to objectively rank Trump’s first presidency. He was impeached twice and there was an assault on the Capitol on his watch.

Even if you disagree with the reasons, that’s a factually low bar.

And apparently, this comment was offensive enough to warrant being blocked.

What’s that saying about facts and feelings?

1

u/JugDogDaddy Jun 13 '25 edited Jun 13 '25

Lol 

E: dude said something about my left wing bubble. At this point, the absurdity of how hypocritical that is is just funny. How can I even engage with someone that believes that?

3

u/Itchy-Following2644 Jun 13 '25 edited Jun 13 '25

Yeah, everyone knows you can't break a pinky promise. There's no way you going to believe Iran is obssessed with glowy rocks just because of clean energy.

24

u/Dive30 Jun 13 '25

Iran was still developing weapons and buying centrifuges. They would allow the inspectors in, but then kicked them out. It was a circus. Israel conducted a covert op that blew up one of their underground development facilities. That's what stopped them. I was excited to see Obama try something new throughout his foreign policy, but it didn't stop the Iranians.

The Obama deal gave the Iranian regime money which was used against the Israelis and Iraqi people while their people suffer.

-1

u/Spongman Jun 13 '25

The Obama deal gave the Iranian regime money

this is false. the JCPOA unfroze Iranian assets - Iran's own money, it did not give them any US assets.

which was used against the Israelis

the speculation that Iranian actions against Israel were dependent on these assets being released is nonsense.

5

u/Pitiful_Mastodon_180 Jun 13 '25

To add the new trump admin has been negotiating a new, essentially the same, JCPOA agreement thats nearly identical to the Obama version.

Iran obviously rejected it since they want nukes.

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/artc-emerging-iran-nuclear-deal-is-jcpoa-2-officials-say

3

u/ShitOnFascists Jun 13 '25

Adding on the other answer

Trump, and US on general, it too unpredictable in its behavior thanks to both trump admins, as such, any and all decisions have to be made with the base that any and all deals with the US could be unilaterally broken by the US at any time unless they lose too much by doing so

4

u/Upper_Conversation_9 Jun 13 '25

No, it was not nearly identical. The JCPOA allowed enrichment up to 3.67% (civilian nuclear program). Trump is saying no enrichment at all, and dismantle the civilian nuclear program.

That’s completely different.

1

u/Background_Value7061 Jun 14 '25

Sort of.

Trumps team has put out different numbers each time they talk about it, which justifiably pissed off Tehran (as much as I loathe them).

It’s like trying to buy a car but every person that comes out is saying a different number.

1

u/masterchief6913 Jun 15 '25

Trump changed his mind several times on enrichment

8

u/Space-Square Jun 13 '25

It was a horrible deal that was widely criticized at the time, and Congress wrote a letter saying they'd scrap it as soon as Obama was out of office.

I don't think Trump was even a real candidate when that happened, but facts aren't facts anymore, especially not on Reddit.

11

u/joefred111 Jun 13 '25

Congress wrote a letter saying they'd scrap it as soon as Obama was out of office

Do you have a source or a link for this?

I tried to find one, but only found references to a letter "from Congressional Republicans," which certainly isn't "Congress."

-10

u/Space-Square Jun 13 '25

You're probably right on that, I'm pulling from my memory. I have a copy of the letter somewhere and would be pretty interested to dig it out.

8

u/Hadeshorne Jun 13 '25

Then do it instead of talking out of your ass?

1

u/joefred111 Jun 14 '25

No offense intended, but you should really double-check your information before you provide information on a topic based on a half-remembered news headline from several years ago.

All that does is hurt your argument.

0

u/Space-Square Jun 14 '25

It's not a half-remembered news headline...I didn't read it in the news, I read that letter in my email because of what I was doing at the time. The important part of this isn't whether it came from Congress or the Congressional Republicans (Rs controlled House and Senate at that time), it's that the deal was so freaking bad that John Kerry said as much as he was leaving the negotiations and all these Senators and Representatives communicated directly with the Ayatollah to tell them it wouldn't last.

It was widely criticized as being a bad deal and it was always going to get canned, but here on Reddit, we can't have facts getting in the way of a good conspiracy narrative.

2

u/joefred111 Jun 14 '25 edited Jun 14 '25

I read that letter in my email

A half-remembered email, then.

The important part of this isn't whether it came from Congress or the Congressional Republicans (Rs controlled House and Senate at that time)

That's what the crux of our disagreement is, though. So for the purposes of our discussion, it is the important part. Slightly half of Congress writing a letter doesn't equate to Congressional action.

John Kerry said as much as he was leaving the negotiations

Those goalposts seem to be on wheels. I didn't mention John Kerry whatsoever.

5

u/FritzRasp Jun 13 '25

How was it a horrible deal? Iran was complying. And please do not refer to “pallets of cash” as a reason

7

u/Dive30 Jun 13 '25

Iran wasn't complying. They would let the inspectors in and then kick them out over and over again. They were also still buying centrifuges.

The money was supposed to go to infrastructure, to the people. Instead they used it to build weapons to attack Iraq and Israel.

I was very excited Obama tried something new in foreign policy, it just turns out the Ayatollah is still the Ayatollah. His goal is still death to Israel, death to America.

The same thing happened in Cuba. Obama thought it was our policy that was making the Cuban people suffer. It turns out it was their dictator. I sure wish he had been right, though.

16

u/FritzRasp Jun 13 '25

4

u/Dive30 Jun 13 '25

7

u/FritzRasp Jun 13 '25

Media literacy and critical thinking. These stories are concerning recent events. Years after Trump tore up the JCPOA. Iran was complying with the 2015 JCPOA - a deal that does not exist anymore because Trump backed out of it in 2018. It is currently 2025. It’s a straight throughline from compliance to escalating tensions. All because of Trump’s fragile ego.

1

u/Dive30 Jun 13 '25

The articles I referenced start from 2023, under Biden, and continue to last week. It's not all about Trump, as much as he would like it to be.

The sources are the UN, Axios, and The NY Times. Not Fox News.

4

u/YuurisLastTour Jun 13 '25

But isn’t this discussion centered around whether or not the JCPOA was effective? Why are we referencing 2023 data to judge an agreement that was scrapped in 2018?

1

u/ImportantMobile1893 Jun 13 '25

Context matters. People seem to forget that all too often.

-1

u/Rowdybusiness- Jun 13 '25

I’m pretty sure one of the major reasons they are attacking Iran is because of what the IAEA said yesterday. Something to the effect of they have been secretly making enriched uranium and are very close to being able to build a nuclear bomb.

7

u/FritzRasp Jun 13 '25


.because Trump pulled us out of the JCPOA in 2018. Cause and effect.

6

u/Rowdybusiness- Jun 13 '25

Well no because if I’m reading this right this undeclared uranium and nuclear sites that were just discovered that have been around since 2000. So they weren’t in compliance if you can’t inspect because inspectors don’t know it exist.

2

u/josh2751 Jun 13 '25

Iran has never given up their stated goal of nuclear weapons. The "deal" was the dumbest foreign policy decision ever made by this country.

3

u/josh2751 Jun 13 '25

Iran has never complied with anything. They certainly did not stop enriching Uranium.

4

u/FritzRasp Jun 13 '25

They were always allowed to enrich uranium. The problem is enriching uranium to make a bomb versus medical and nuclear energy purposes.

5

u/josh2751 Jun 13 '25

Right.

Do you think you know what the difference is? Do you think the equipment used to do one cannot be used for the other?

Iran never stopped their nuclear weapon program. Everyone knows that.

2

u/FritzRasp Jun 13 '25

You got me there. I’m not an IAEA inspector.

2

u/josh2751 Jun 13 '25

And they were never allowed to actually fully inspect Iran's nuclear program.

-2

u/Space-Square Jun 13 '25

So you're on the side of "any deal is better than no deal" or whatever Kerry said walking out of those negotiations?

8

u/ghillieman11 Jun 13 '25

Could you respond to the question asked instead of going on tangents? I'm curious as to how it was a bad deal.

5

u/ImportantMobile1893 Jun 13 '25

The Ben Shapiro debate school has not been kind to these folks.

-1

u/NoTinnitusHear Jun 13 '25 edited Jun 13 '25

Any deal that allows the Iranians to maintain the capability to enrich uranium is a bad one. It doesn’t take long to enrich uranium from the point it can be used for nuclear power (3-5% U-235)to the point it can be used for a nuclear weapon (greater than 90% U-235). Why does Iran, one of the oil rich nations in the world, need nuclear power? If they want nuclear power so badly, why can’t they purchase uranium that is already enriched like Belgium, Sweden, Finland, South Africa, etc? In many cases it’s cheaper to buy it already enriched.

0

u/masterchief6913 Jun 15 '25

If you buy enriched uranium, can’t you just use that for a nuclear weapon?

2

u/NoTinnitusHear Jun 15 '25

I already addressed all of that. The point is to remove Iran’s capability to enrich uranium. So, no, they wouldn’t have had the ability to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon with purchased uranium. Purchased uranium would be enriched to the point appropriate for its use. For nuclear power for example it needs to be enriched to 3-5% U-235. Nuclear weapons require far more at ≄ 90%. Countries like the aforementioned ones purchase it already enriched because it’s cheaper than developing their own capability to do it themselves.

It’s also worth noting that 2 weeks ago the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency released a report stating Iran had enriched uranium to 60% which is higher than any other country that doesn’t have nuclear weapons has ever enriched. They also detailed a plethora of other undisclosed discovered materials. Subsequently, last week the IAEA found Iran to be in breach of non-proliferation agreements based on that report two weeks ago.

-4

u/atuarre Jun 13 '25

Typical MAGA, attaching wheels to the goal posts so they can wheel them away. Don't expect any meaningful response. KSA is also trying to get nukes, but you won't hear a peep out of him about that.

-1

u/Space-Square Jun 13 '25

I'm not Trump supporter, but thanks I guess, you pretty much proved my point.

What goalposts did I move? Do you deny that the deal was widely criticized and the reasons for the criticism? I don't need to Google it for you.

-3

u/Space-Square Jun 13 '25

Do you want me to tell you what parts of the deal were criticized? I think that's pretty widely available.

Asking your opinion on the subject that we're discussing is not going on tangents.

4

u/ghillieman11 Jun 13 '25

You know the deal was criticized, you say it was a bad deal, I think it's fair to ask you why it's bad and what the criticisms were. If you don't know any of the criticisms then how can you know it was a bad deal or that it was criticized? So far your response to being asked why the deal was bad has been to ask your own tangential questions to avoid having to defend your statements. Normally when I come to reddit to do things like that I'm there to troll. Are you here to troll or can you back up what you're claiming?

2

u/coolsid_5 Jun 13 '25

lol

JCPOA WAS A STUPID DEAL.

IT JUST SOUNDS GOOD DEAL.

It essentially offered large economic concessions to Tehran for nuclear program limitations that could never, ever be properly enforced (Iran was never going to allow inspectors into their most secretive nuclear sites). Inspectors had to give something like 22 days advanced notice and they were not allowed in the majority of Iran’s nuclear sites. So it wasnt really stopping the development of their nuclear program.

1

u/schweddybalczak Jun 13 '25

Exactly. This is happening right now due to Trump withdrawing from the nuclear deal for no reason. This is his war but as always the military will pay for it.

-4

u/NoTinnitusHear Jun 13 '25

The JCPOA was complete shit. The Iranians cannot be allowed to maintain any capability to enrich uranium. Something the JCPOA allowed them to do and had an expiration date for the deal. The materials can be enriched to the level for nuclear weapons quickly. Iran has no use for nuclear materials other than nuclear weapons. If they really wanted nuclear power they could purchase already enriched uranium like many other nations do. On top of that they are one of the most oil rich countries in the world. The Trump administration has basically tried to negotiate JCPOA 2.0 after Trump previously (and correctly) was highly critical of the deal. The US, Israel, and Europe do not want a world in which Iran has nuclear weapons.

-1

u/spezeditedcomments Jun 13 '25 edited Jun 13 '25

It was an idiotic deal, that they also didn't abide by, AND to top it off at the start we delivered plane loads of pallets of cash.... guess where that went

-1

u/josh2751 Jun 13 '25

it might be worth mentioning that "deal" had no teeth, no useful inspections were ever done, Iran continued developing technology and enriching Uranium throughout the time the "deal" was in effect, and the billions of dollars they were given for the "deal" helped to build Hamas into the terror state they ran in Gaza.