Alex גדעון בן װעלװל

He is a fucking moron who can barely read. It's embarrassing that he produced a better outcome than people who are far smarter than him. They have something to learn here.

Yes, Israel struck in Hezbollah over bipartisan American objections. And it struck in Iran over bipartisan American objections.

Blocking on site any person whose brain is so cooked by negative partisanship they can't admit that this was a decisive win.

Now that the dust is settling and a broader war looks increasingly unlikely, it’s worth discussing how decades of bipartisan consensus on the consequences of striking Iran’s nuclear program were upended by an orange fool.

Why did so many get it so wrong?

The Iranians, who have spilled far more blood across the Middle East and world than the average American realizes, are seeing thirty years of their strategy collapsing in real time.

I don't know what comes next. I do know Israel is stronger and Iran is weaker heading into it.

The war began with Israeli trauma, but is ending with Iran's regional posture badly weakened. Hamas is devastated. Hezbollah’s command structure is shattered, Iran's deterrence is gone, and their escalation capability is contained.

Iran’s long-term strategy was to surround Israel with heavily armed proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ, Houthis, to deter action and bleed Israel in any conflict.

But Hamas’s 10/7 attack was premature and uncoordinated. Iran supported a proxy that they didn't truly control.

The region's geopolitics are being reshaped in real time too.

For Arab states watching, the message is clear: Israel has freedom of action, the competence to carry it out, and results to show.

That changes the calculus not just in Tehran, but in Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Cairo.

These weren’t mass bombings. They were high-trust, intelligence-driven decapitations to start. Both ops showed Israel can hit strategic leadership & assets rapidly without triggering full-scale war.

That’s not a fluke. That’s doctrine evolving in real time.

The Hezbollah and Iran strikes followed the same blueprint:
– Weeks of Israeli buildup
– Human intelligence assets inside enemy territory
– Compartmentalized strike teams
– Tight U.S.-Israel coordination
– Surgical timing to hit command nodes first and repeatedly as they try to regroup and respond

More broadly, it's because Israel took on Hamas and later Iran's true insurance policy, Hezbollah.

The success of the Hezbollah op showed what was possible operationally and politically.

This is largely driven by material realities in Iran. They were caught completely flat footed. Israel controlled their skies early on. Hard to fight against F-16s and even harder against B2s and American submarines.

So it is with the U.S. strikes on Iran. I was concerned about the execution of an op and about the risk of mission creep into another long war in the Middle East.

The first risk has been averted. The second is becoming less likely by the day.

I find in many situations that when assessing if something is good or bad, other people come at it with "it could have been so much better" and are upset. I come at most things with "it could have been so much worse" and feel more grateful.

A ceasefire is good, but the long-term struggle with Iran will continue until their foreign policy changes.

Israel and the U.S. have likely set its nuclear program back by years, maybe decades. Iran’s “ring of fire” has been degraded, and Middle East geopolitics has changed.

Yes, I haven't seen any either. Seems too specific to lie about, even for him.

Trump announces Iran-Israel ceasefire Trump said that during each 12-hour ceasefire, the other side "will remain PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL."

After Iran chose ro de-escalate, Trump followed suit and announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran.

Good development.

Risk of a wider regional war and American mission creep is going down precipitously.

www.axios.com/2025/06/23/t...

The facility is not functional and all the equipment and materials in it are likely damaged at a minimum. This is motivated reasoning rooted in opposition to Trump, not real concerns.

This is a liberal conspiracy theory motivated by opposition to Trump, not real concerns rooted in evidence. Nuclear products and equipment are not easy to move, require expertise, and leave a detectable signature. IAEA hasn't reported anything to suggest this.

That sets them back by years. There's no ramp up to be done, they have to start from basically 0. And if they decide to pursue a nuclear program again, they do so knowing how the Mossad has thoroughly penetrated every org in the country.

We know the following:

-most of the leading scientists involved in the program are dead
-their repository of technical knowledge *and* their back up was destroyed
-every facility was at least damaged, several totally destroyed
-most military commanders involved in the program are dead

In my eyes, that's functionally the end of their nuclear program. They have been set back by years, if not decades.

We know the following:

-most of the leading scientists involved in the program are dead
-their repository of technical knowledge *and* their back up was destroyed
-every facility was at least damaged, several totally destroyed
-most military commanders involved in the program are dead

Iran chose to save face and deescalate. Trump accepted the deescalation. This is a good outcome. Iran's nuclear program was destroyed without a wider war that many feared would come with such an endeavor.

Anyway the war, or at least American involvement in it, is probably over also

Power has a way of making people rational.

Even in this scenario, name the country that joins Iran to make this a global war. What you're describing is grounds for regime change in Iran, not a global war.

Yes, but he too doesn't make decisions in a vacuum.

Per the NYT, Iran gave the U.S. a heads up about the strike in Qatar. No casualties are being reported.

Iran chose to save face rather than escalate. So much for all the obnoxious WW3 shrieks on this site, but good choice by Iran.

Maybe, we have no way of knowing. They could have done theater in Iraq too with far less risk