Posted on 04/05/2026 2:00:24 PM PDT by neverevergiveup
Mutually assured destruction as a deterrent against use of nuclear weapons has undoubtedly been a crucial reason why they haven't been used. Would a nuclear Iran, if it continued as the present theocracy, be dissuaded from using nuclear weapons because of the fear of reprisal? It's a critical question.
The avg Iranian IQ is 106, they are in the top 5 of nations for IQ. They are not 86 IQ Arabs.
It is a highly relevant question. Another would be, 'When someone repeatedly expresses a desire to destroy you (e.g. Death to America), should you believe them or just ignore them?').
Non-falsifiable propositions are claims, beliefs, hypotheses etc. that cannot be proved wrong by experimentation or observable evidence. I didn't make any claims / hypotheses etc. I asked a question. As this question has potential existential implications for at least Israel, and probably many other nations, it is a very valid question to reflect upon. This is in many ways an opinion site, and I was asking for opinions.
Never!
Good points. With nukes it’s never enough. I suspect Iran already have one or more. But they are deterred from launching them because they prefer living
Only possible deterrent is to paint our bullets with lard. And publish it with videos for the illiterate barbarians... they may not read, but they have smart phones. Not joking. Drop bombs with lard, too. Any pig juice keeps them from their virgins.
No they will not be deterred. In order to bring back the 12th Imam they need to bring on some kind of apocalypse, and we have seen already that it didn’t bother them to kill some 40,000 of their people.
The MAD doctrine depended on both parties being rational and understanding the consequences of a nuclear war where there would be no winners. At least twice during the Cold War, Russian commanders avoided launching nuclear missiles despite pressure to do so. The Iranian mullahs do not have a rational world view and believe that the destruction of the US and Israel is a religious duty and the resulting global cataclysm would fulfill their prophecies. With nuclear weapons they would pose a greater threat an apocalyptic global war than even the unhinged North Koreans.
I just don’t understand how this is even a thought. They are islamists. The greatest act one can do within that religion is die killing the infidel as they will be rewarded in the afterlife. Whoever decides to push the button, will do it with a smile on their face. They live to die for their god.
wy69
Mayhem is their great yearning. Like dandelions, with missiles.
“ With nuclear weapons they would pose a greater threat an apocalyptic global war than even the unhinged North Koreans.”
An exchange between the USA and USSR involving 10,000 weapons on each side would have been apocalyptic.
Iran committing suicide by delivering a gunbarrel Hiroshima bomb in a US harbor would not be apocalyptic.
Speaking about Iran “destroying America” is just histrionic propaganda.
No, because they think that setting the world on fire will usher in their imam of some kind.
Operation Praying Mantis was an attack on 18 April 1988 by the United States Armed Forces within Iranian territorial waters in retaliation for the Iranian naval mining of international waters in the Persian Gulf during the Iran–Iraq War and the subsequent damage to an American warship. The U.S. Navy attacked with several groups of surface warships, plus aircraft from the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, and her cruiser escort, USS Truxtun. The attack began with coordinated strikes by two surface groups.
In the 1990s, disputes between Iran and the United Arab Emirates over control of several small islands within the Strait of Hormuz resulted in further treats to close the strait. By 1992 however, Iran took control of the islands but tensions remained in the region throughout the 1990s.
In December 2007 and into 2008, a series of naval events between the United States and Iran took place in the Strait of Hormuz. In June of 2008 Iran asserted that if it were attacked by the U.S. the strait would be sealed off in an effort to damage the world’s oil markets. The U.S. responded by claiming that any closure of the strait would be treated as an act of war. This further increased tensions and showed the importance of the Strait of Hormuz on a worldwide scale. - https://www.thoughtco.com/strait-of-hormuz-1435398'
On 29 June, 2008, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Mohammad Ali Jafari, said that if either Israel or the U.S. attacked Iran, it would seal off the strait to wreak havoc in the oil markets. Cosgriff warned that such Iranian action would be considered an act of war, and the U.S. would not allow Iran to hold hostage a third of the world's oil supply.[37] In the last week of July, in Operation Brimstone,[39] dozens of U.S., and naval ships from other countries, came to undertake joint exercises for possible military activity in the shallow waters off the coast of Iran. By 11 August, more than 40 U.S. and allied ships were en route to the strait.[40]
On 27 December 2011, Iranian vice president Mohammad Reza Rahimi threatened to cut off oil supply from the strait should economic sanctions limit, or cut off, Iranian oil exports.[41] A U.S. Fifth Fleet spokeswoman said the Fleet was "always ready to counter malevolent actions", whilst Admiral Habibollah Sayyari of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy claimed cutting off oil shipments would be "easy".[42] Despite an initial 2% rise in oil prices, markets ultimately did not react significantly to Iran's threat, with oil analyst Thorbjoern Bak Jensen concluding "they cannot stop the flow for a longer period due to the amount of U.S. hardware in the area".[43]On 3 January 2012, Iran threatened to take action if the U.S. Navy moved an aircraft carrier back into the Persian Gulf. Iranian Army chief Ataollah Salehi said the U.S. had moved a carrier out of the Persian Gulf because of Iran's naval exercises, and Iran would take action if the ship returned. "Iran will not repeat its warning ... the enemy's carrier has been moved to the Gulf of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf", he said.[44]
By 23 January, a flotilla had been established by countries opposing Iran's threats to close the strait.[51] These ships operated in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea off the coast of Iran. The flotilla included three American aircraft carriers, three destroyers, seven British warships, including the destroyer HMS Daring[52][53] and four Type 23 frigates, and the French frigate La Motte-Picquet.[54]
On 22 April 2019, the U.S. ended the oil waivers, which had allowed some of Iran's customers to import Iranian oil, without risking financial penalties as part of U.S. economic sanctions. Al Jazeera quoted Major-General Mohammad Bagheri of the Iranian Armed Forces, stating "We are not after closing the Strait of Hormuz but if the hostility of the enemies increases, we will be able to do so...[58] If our oil does not pass, the oil of others shall not pass the Strait of Hormuz either".[59]Iran has persistently attacked vessels and seized ships amidst political issues.[35][60] On 13 June 2019, the oil tankers Front Altair and Kokuka Courageous were rocked by explosions shortly before dawn; the crew of the latter reported seeing a flying object strike the ship. They were rescued by the destroyer USS Bainbridge while the crew of the Front Altair were rescued by Iranian ships.
In July 2019, a Stena Bulk Tanker, Stena Impero, sailing under a British flag, was boarded and captured by Iranian forces.[62] The spokesman for Iran's Guardian Council, Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, was quoted as describing the seizure as a "reciprocal action". This was presumed to be in reference to the seizure of an Iranian tanker bound for Syria, Grace 1, in Gibraltar a few days prior.[63]
In 2020, France deployed about 600 troops at sea and in the air under the CTF474 to protect maritime trade, regional business, and to ease local tensions. Since the first week of April 2020, the operation combines the Dutch frigate Ruyter, the French frigate Forbin, and one French airplane ATLANTIC2 (ATL2).[64]
A May 2012 article by Nilufer Oral, a Turkish researcher of maritime law, concludes that both the UNCLOS, which came into effect in 1994; and the 1958 Convention on the High Seas would be violated if Iran followed through on its threat to block passage of vessels, such as oil tankers, and that the act of passage is not related in law to the imposition of economic sanctions. The article further asserts that a coastal state may prevent "transit or non-suspendable innocent passage" only if: 1) there is threatened or actual use of force, occurring during passage, against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of a state bordering the strait; or 2) the vessel in any other way violates the principles of international law as embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.[108]
As of 2013, the UNCLOS treaty had been ratified by 63 states, including most NATO-bloc and Soviet-bloc nations but with the notable exceptions of most of the OPEC and Arab League nations like Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, as well as China, North Korea, and South Korea.[109] As of February 2026, 157 sovereign states, including the EU are parties,[110] including all major powers except the United States, which has not ratified the treaty.
On 28 April 2015, IRGCN patrol boats contacted the Marshall Islands–flagged container ship Maersk Tigris, which was westbound through the strait, and directed the ship to proceed further into Iranian territorial waters,..Maersk says it agreed to pay an Iranian company $163,000 after an Iranian court ruling over a dispute about 10 container boxes transported to Dubai in 2005. An appeal court raised the fine to $3.6 million.[31]
On 4 January 2021, the Tasnim News Agency reported that a South Korea–flagged oil vessel headed from Saudi Arabia to the United Arab Emirates was seized for allegedly causing pollution violations.
In April 2024, the Iranian Navy seized[33] MSC Aries, a Portuguese-flagged container ship .. claiming that it had violated maritime laws.[34] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz#U.S.%E2%80%93Iran_disputes,_threats_to_close_the_Strait
In contrast,
Israel has made numerous significant concessions, withdrawals, and cooperative efforts over decades in pursuit of peace or coexistence with Arab states and Palestinians. Here's an extensive list, organized chronologically and by category:
Major Territorial Concessions & Withdrawals
1949 Armistice Lines: Accepted UN partition despite Arab rejection and invasion.
1957 Sinai Withdrawal: Returned entire Sinai to Egypt after Suez Crisis (won defensively).
1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty:
Returned 100% of Sinai Peninsula (larger than Israel proper)
Created demilitarized zones
Extensive security cooperation
1994 Gaza-Jericho Agreement (Oslo I):
Transferred Gaza City + Jericho to Palestinian Authority control
First recognition of PLO
1995 Oslo II/Taba Agreement:
Transferred 40% of West Bank (Areas A+B) to PA control
Created Palestinian self-rule enclaves
1998 Wye River Memorandum:
Additional 13% West Bank land transfer to PA
Prisoner releases
2000 Camp David Summit:
Offered 91-97% of West Bank, East Jerusalem capital, Temple Mount access
Rejected by Arafat
2001 Taba Talks:
Improved offer: 97% West Bank + land swaps
Arafat walked away
2005 Gaza Disengagement:
Unilateral withdrawal of all 21 settlements, 9,000 settlers
IDF completely left Gaza
Result: Hamas takeover 2007, rocket attacks intensified
2008 Olmert-Abbas Offer:
93.7% West Bank + 5.8% land swaps = 99.5% total
East Jerusalem capital, safe passage to Gaza
Rejected
2014 Kerry Peace Framework: Netanyahu accepted; Abbas refused.
Arab State Peace Treaties
1979 Egypt: Full peace, massive territorial concession
1994 Jordan: Full peace treaty
2020 Abraham Accords: UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco
2022-2023 Saudi talks: Ongoing normalization discussionsEconomic & Humanitarian Cooperation
1990s-2000s Gaza:
$ billions in PA salaries, medical care
20,000+ Gazans treated yearly in Israeli hospitals
Electricity, water, fuel transfers despite attacks
West Bank Cooperation:
PA security forces trained by US/Israel
Joint counterterrorism operations
Israel collects PA tax revenues
Medical Cooperation:
Tens of thousands of Gazans treated in Israel yearly
VIP medical treatment for Hamas officials
COVID-19 vaccine offers to PA
Failed Confidence-Building Measures
1997 Hebron Agreement: IDF redeployment, PA control 80% of Hebron
2000 Sharm el-Sheikh: Partial redeployments
Sharon's Gaza Plan (2003): Early disengagement proposalPost-1967 Withdrawals from Defensive Gains
West Bank: Returned 40%+ to PA control
Gaza: 100% withdrawal twice (1994 partial, 2005 full)
Southern Lebanon: Full 2000 withdrawal to Blue Line
Golan Heights: Offered 99%+ return to Syria multiple times
Counterfactual: What Israel Kept vs. What Was Offered
Territory Captured 1967 Currently Controlled Offered for Peace Sinai ✅ Full ❌ None 100% returned Gaza ✅ Full ❌ None 100% withdrawn West Bank ✅ Full ~60% 91-99% offered Golan ✅ Full 100% 99% offered Lebanon ✅ South ❌ None 100% withdrawn The Pattern
Israel has:
Returned ~95%+ of territories won in defensive wars
Made 5 major peace offers to Palestinians (all rejected)
Signed peace with former enemies (Egypt, Jordan, Abraham Accords)
Provided billions in economic/medical aid despite conflict
Withdrawn unilaterally from Gaza and Lebanon
Result: Rocket fire from Gaza intensified post-2005; rejectionism continues.
This record shows sustained peace-seeking despite consistent rejection and violence in response. The data contradicts claims Israel "doesn't want peace."
I they believe Allah will preserve them, so NO!
No. They’re not logical thinkers.
It would be like putting an alcoholic in charge of quality control testing at a bourbon distillery.
No. Not a chance. What prompted Trump’s tweet is that they are crazy bastards. Like a bunch of crazed animals they continued to pour into the Mahyar area only to be slaughtered and still they came. He keeps pushing the line back hoping they will respond to good sense instead of more death and destruction. They won’t. Death is all that will stop them.
That’s a great post, thanks.
As I have posted now, many times, Israel’s strategic situation is bad and getting worse. I don’t really see how a comprehensive solution to impose their will on their enemies is possible.
No they want end times.
Having the right uranium is not at all the same as having a complete nuclear weapons system. There’s a very big layer of complexity in the mechanism for the correct reaction let alone the delivery platforms which are very ruined.
NO!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.