Israel not trying to start war with Iran - just to influence its demands in talks with US - wars stay in Middle East - no risk of world war - both sides de-escalate using long gaps between responses
.NOT a risk of war between US and Iran. Israel is
not trying to start a war.
trying to influence Iran to remove its request for civilian enrichment of uranium in the new deal.
they are focusing on military and nuclear facilities and people not the ordinary Iranians or civilian facilities.
[Skip to Contents or click on column of dashes to the left if you see it on your device]
The risk is that Iran might then do a tit for tat response. But from past history they are likely to be slow to respond. Iran’s 100 drones are just symbolic. Israel shot them all down easily before they reached Israel.
QUOTE At about 10:50 a.m. — around the time that the drones were expected to reach Israel — the military’s Home Front Command said civilians no longer needed to remain close to bomb shelters.
Israel has continued to attack Iran the next day and eventually Iran responded with dozens of ballistic missiles fired at Israel https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-june-13-2025/, very like its response in October 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2024_Iranian_strikes_on_Israel
Historically Iran is likely to be slow to respond, but the continuing attacks likely pressurized it to do something in response.
It is impossible for Iran to fight a world war if it tried. And it can't fight a normal war with Israel either, the countries are too far apart with the countries in between not going to permit the armies to meet, 1000 km at closest.
Only missiles from a distance and Iran won't want to do much by way of tit for tat.
Iran doesn't have nukes. Just slightly radioactive Uranium hexafluoride gas.
Israel will NOT use nukes. Nothing there can affect anyone outside the region.
They are not even capable of a ground war with 1000 km in between and the intervening countries wouldn't let Iranian or Israeli armies drive through their countries to clash with each other. Only ballistic and air launched cruise misiles from a distance. And Iran will not want a prolonged tit for tat. Nobody else would get involved except possibly the Houthi rebels and Iraqi insurgents.
And Trump says the Iranian negotiators are already reaching out to him for more peace talks.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Mainland US is at no risk of being attacked by ANY Middle East countries - and Russia and China would NOT get involved.
Nobody in the Middle East opposed to the US or Israel is able to fire weapons to another continent. The longest range Iranian missile is 2000 km. It needs most of the range to reach Israel. Its diesel subs and three frigates are no threat to the US or Europe and its military planes can't get there either.
Why there is NO RISK EVER of a world war from yet one more conflict in the Middle East of many (basic geography few seem to know on social media)
Shortest distance from Iran to USA 8,400+ km.
Iran can't shoot further than here (2000 km)
Iran is NOT able to attack the US
US often fights in the Middle East - e.g. Iraq, Gulf war, Syria etc. NONE OF THESE COUNTRIES CAN EVER HIT THE US.
Russia is resolutely neutral on Israel / Iran - it only agrees not to supply Israel with missiles to attack Iran.
This time the US is not even supporting Israel
Iran with its 3 frigates and a few diesel subs CANNOT REALISTICALLY TAKE ON THE WORLD IN A WORLD WAR and won't try.
Iran needs its 2000 km missiles just to hit Israel, closest point 1000 km
Iran and Israel are 1000 km away at their closest
To skip the updates to go to the main article or whatever section interests you: Skip to Contents or click on column of dashes to the left if you see it on your device
Update 3:
Iran’s 100 drones are just symbolic. Israel shot them all down easily before they reached Israel.
QUOTE At about 10:50 a.m. — around the time that the drones were expected to reach Israel — the military’s Home Front Command said civilians no longer needed to remain close to bomb shelters.
Israel has continued to attack Iran the next day and eventually Iran responded with dozens of ballistic missiles fired at Israel https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-june-13-2025/, very like its response in October 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2024_Iranian_strikes_on_Israel
Iran attacked Israel before. This is just like the strikes in October 2024.
The main difference is Iran responded faster with only one day delay instead of a long wait.
The reason is that Israel after its first strike told Iran that it would keep attacking it and did another strike the next day.
Iran would likely have waited a long time to respond if it was a single attack but with the prospect of an ongoing campaign and with Israel destroying its ballistic missiles also as part of the attack it is not surprising that it would feel it needs to do somethign to try to get Israel to rethink it's approach, even if futile.
Iran will NOT want to encourage tit for tat but when it knows Israel is going to keep attacking no matter what it does then it's not surprising to do a short ballistic missile response in the middle of it all.
Update 2
Update 2: Iran did respond immediately with 100 drones but this is symbolic. These are slow moving drones about the speed of a fast car and very easy for Israel to shoot down if they get that far.
It hasn’t sent any ballistic missiles yet.
Trump is using this to pressurize Iran to a peace treaty:
I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to “just do it,” but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn’t get it done.
…
Certain Iranian hardliner’s spoke bravely, but they didn’t know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse!
…
Iran must make a deal, … No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. God Bless You All!
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114675456780398208
[Left out some of the hyperbole, as usual Trump exaggerates and says impossible things]
He told NBC news that Iranian representatives are reaching out to him.
QUOTE STARTS
Asked why he thinks Iran would want to make a deal now, after the Israeli strikes, Trump indicated that Iranians are reaching out to him to suggest as much.
"They're calling me to speak," said Trump, when asked to identify who was calling, he said, “The same people we worked with the last time ... Many of them are dead now.”
Iran is talking about retaliation but they always do and this tells us nothing either way about what they will actually do. Typically they talk about retaliation for days to weeks before doing much. If they do achieve a peace deal with the US that would end that retaliation talk.
Israel’s main objective seems to have been to kill military commanders. Also to destroy air defences and stockpiles of ballistic missiles intended for Ukraine.
Israel say they used deception to get top commanders in Iran to meet and then they hit the underground meeting place and killed many of them.
QUOTE STARTS A senior Israeli security official told Fox News that Israel successfully deceived top commanders of Iran’s air force into gathering ahead of a targeted strike on an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps underground command center — an attack Defense Minister Israel Katz said eliminated most of the IRGC’s air force leadership.
“We carried out specific activities to help us learn more about them, and then used that information to influence their behavior,” the official said. “We knew this would lead them to meet, but more importantly, we knew how to keep them there.”
For anyone living in Iran or with friends there, your personal risk is very low like a traffic accident. It's not like Gaza Strip which is very crowded with military targets in tunnels under houses or Hamas leaders disguised amongst ordinary Gazans.
There are 90 million people and they are targeting generals and nuclear scientists. The missiles Israel uses are very precise and they seem to have evaded the Iranian air defences so effectively they didn’t try to shoot them down. So there wasn’t the usual risk from falling debris either.
Apart from the remote chance of anyone living in the same house as a nuclear scientist or a military commander, the risk to civilians is very low - the missiles are very precise. Their targets are not trying to hide from public knowledge as civilians.
Russia’s official response:
"no matter what explanations those who planned, developed and carried out the attack on Iran may use to justify it, the crisis around the Iranian nuclear program cannot be resolved by military force and can be settled exclusively through peaceful, political and diplomatic means.
… We hope that this is the approach that will ultimately prevail. We call on the parties to exercise restraint in order to prevent further escalation of tensions and the region's slide into full-scale war. In this regard, we recall the US readiness to hold another round of talks with Iran on its nuclear program in Oman,
. Russia strongly condemns Israel’s attack against Iran — Foreign Ministry
Tass is accurate on Russia's own official statements.
Update
Update: Israel has done the strike.
US is NOT involved - president Trump was very clear that he didn’t want Israel to do it.
Remember also that from past history:
Iran is not likely to retaliate immediately.
From past history it will take time to decide how to respond which may well be in other ways not with missiles.
The Times of Israel says that Israel used various methods to lull the Iranians into a false sense of security such as claiming that President Netanyahu was taking a short holiday when he didn’t.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-june-12-2025/
Iran does NOT want to encourage more Israeli strikes. Also it won’t want to draw the US into the fight.
For instance it could seize a tanker. Or block the Hormuz strait.
Also when Israel claims that Iran has enough nuclear material to make 9 nukes https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-june-12-2025/ - this material is in the form of uranium hexafluoride gas.
Israel CANNOT make nukes in days. All it can do in days is to enrich it to the point where it has enough slightly radioactive uranium hexafluoride gas for 9 nukes. But it keeps it at 60% enrichment and hasn’t done the extra step to the 90% needed for nukes.
Making actual nukes would take six months and Iran does NOT want to do that. We can see this because it kept six months away from its first nuke for over a year now. It also has a new president who is keen on peaceful negotiations with the West.
For this background see my:
Remember that this is largely symbolic since without US help Israel can’t strike the centrifuges deep underground. Nanetz has:
Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) - underground - 14,000 centrifuges installed, roughly 11,000 in operation, refining uranium to up to 5% purity.
Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP). - above ground - 1,700 centrifuges - enriching to 60%.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-june-12-2025/
The Israelis completely destroyed the PFEP. No sign of any damage to the FEP.
https://x.com/TheGoodISIS/status/1933539314148823467
Only advice is for US offiicals in Iraq and families of military families in the region to evacuate - NOT A WARNING FOR AMERICANS IN THE USA
CBS News says that the
The U.S. anticipates Iran could retaliate on certain American sites in neighboring Iraq. This is part of the reason the U.S. advised some Americans to leave the region earlier Wednesday. The State Department ordered non-emergency government officials to exit Iraq due to "heightened regional tensions," and the Pentagon has authorized military family members to voluntarily leave locations throughout the Middle East, a defense official told CBS News.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-is-poised-to-launch-operation-on-iran-sources-say/
So the ONLY ADVICE is for non emergency government officials to leave Iraq and for military family members to voluntarily leave locations throughout the Middle East during a period of heigher tension. Not an advisory for tourists.
The US travel advisory for tourists already says do not travel to Iraq. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/International-Travel-Country-Information-Pages/Iraq.html But that’s not new it’s been in place since the Iraq invasion in 2003. https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/l/2003/44402.htm and there are places in the Middle East where US tourists are advised its reasonably safe to travel such as the tourist areas in Eypt.
The stories don’t explain but in reality if Israel did symbolicallly attack Iran, it wouldn’t expect an immediate response.
If Iran did respond
it would likely only be after a delay of some weeks to de-escalate and consider its options and put psychological pressure on Israel, as that is the normal pattern there.
Also there are many other options for Iran other than a direct attack on Israel which it would be very reluctant to do because it is militarily so weak. For instance
to seize a tanker say. or close the Hormus strait.
But of course the military have to prepare for anything even improbable responses which is why they recommended some US personnel in bases in Iraq to withdraw.
Here are a few other points many don’t know about Iran:
Israel AND Iran don’t want to fight each other
Russia would never help Iran attack Israel - it keeps resolutely neutral on that dispute and there are many Russian jews in Israel and Putin is close friends with the chief Rabbi of Russia.
Iran would be on its own and has no way to fight any war outside of the Middle East even if it wanted to, only 3 frigates would take about a week to reach the UK and no foreign ports.
Wars in the Middle East stay there as we know from many previous wars.
Iran doens’t have nukes and clearly doesn’t want them or it would have started on them long ago, it wants to negotiate
Iran has no interest in any country outside the Middle East, the risk to the US is only ever to personnel in US bases in the Middle East.
See also
Iran clearly does not want nukes and has stopped enriching uranium - is not an ally of Russia - and wants security for itself and prosperity like most countries - no risk of a world war
I hope to help you see things a bit from Iran’s perspective. As we’ll see, Iran is clearly not interested in developing nukes any time soon. It has been within a fortnight of enough nuclear material to make a first crude nuke for over a year now. It would take about 6 months to make the first crude nuke it could only use in Iran. But it could have got a…
Israel is likely trying to pressure Iran in the talks with threats and doesn’t want a war with Iran
It's likely Israel trying to pressure Iran in the talks with threats. Rather than to really do this as it wouldn't be very effective.
The CBS story says US would not join in and without the participation of US bombers, Israel wouldn't be able to use bombs that can penetrate to Iran's deeply buried Uranium enrichment facilities. So the Israeli plan is largely symbolic.
CBS news says that the US would protect Israel from missile attacks by Iran if it counterattacks.
QUOTE STARTS
U.S. officials have been told Israel is fully ready to launch an operation into Iran, multiple sources told CBS News.
The U.S. anticipates Iran could retaliate on certain American sites in neighboring Iraq. This is part of the reason the U.S. advised some Americans to leave the region earlier Wednesday. The State Department ordered non-emergency government officials to exit Iraq due to "heightened regional tensions," and the Pentagon has authorized military family members to voluntarily leave locations throughout the Middle East, a defense official told CBS News.
...
The source familiar said the options are unlikely to include direct participation by U.S. B-2 bombers that carry the type of bombs that can penetrate Iran's deep underground fortified uranium enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz. Without that type of strike by U.S. B-2 bombers, it is unlikely Israeli military action could destroy the underground portions of Iran's program, and thus solo military action by Israel is presumed to be limited in its capability to fully eliminate the program.
The U.S. official said the U.S. could help defend Israel against Iranian ballistic missiles in case of a counterattack, as it did during the two tit-for-tat episodes between Iran and Israel in April 2024 and October 2024.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-is-poised-to-launch-operation-on-iran-sources-say/
If it did happen there is a small risk of reprisals on US bases in Iraq. That's why US is removing those personnel. It is of no relevance to any one else from the US.
The CBS story says nothing about any risk to the US itself.
CBS doesn't say more, but in reality the last thing Iran wants is a prolonged tit for tat with Israel never mind the US.
Nor does Israel. It just wants to influence the deal Iran makes with the US.
The two sides de-escalate by leaving longer and longer gaps between responses
From previous history neither side want all-out war and if Israel did do this then Iran would NOT counterattack immediately, it would wait for several weeks weighing its options and trying to pressurize Israel thorugh the psychological uncertainty. It would also likely look into such things as blocking the strait of Hormuz, seizing tankers etc.
For background see my blog posts about the previous tit for tat with long periods of deliberation between each response.
Israel / Iran tit for tat over: Israel did minor strike on military radar in Iran - NOT nuclear facilities - both sides de-escalated - never any world war risk
UPDATE: Looks like Iran and Israel are likely to treat it as a closed case. Experts say this particular episode is likely over. Remember Iran said they would respond instantly with a massive strike. But Iran instead is denying anything happened. That is an easy way from their side to de-escalate.
And there is NO RISK to anyone outside the region, wars in the MIddle East stay there. More on that in a moment.
It’s about the issue that Iran wants to be able to do some level of low level civilian uranium enrichment - while Israel wants it to destroy that capability
For anything like this I go to Times of Israel which is very accurate on Israel's perspective (though it has restrictions on what it can say about Palestinians).
It says the issue is about Iran's requests to be able to do some level of uranium enrichment. Trump is quite amenable to permitting that with precautions to ensure it is only for civilian use. Israel is opposed.
QUOTE STARTS
A senior Iranian official told Reuters on Thursday that a “friendly” regional country had alerted Tehran over a potential military strike by Israel.
The official said tensions were intended to “influence Tehran to change its position about its nuclear rights” during talks with the United States set for Sunday in Oman, and vowed that Tehran would hold firm to its insistence on maintaining some enrichment.
According to the report, Israel was weighing the option of striking the Islamic Republic’s nuclear infrastructure, fearing that Washington could agree to a deal that falls short of its demands regarding Iran ending all nuclear enrichment.
Sources told the news network that they were not aware of any plans in the US to aid Israel in its endeavor to strike Iran, directly or indirectly, in the form of aerial refueling or intelligence sharing.
...
US officials believe Israel is ready to carry out an attack on Iran and could launch military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities in the coming days, reports suggested early Thursday, even as high-level talks aimed at a diplomatic deal over Tehran’s nuclear activity remained on track for Sunday.
The background is that Trump is no longer so confident that he can reach a deal with Iran.
The reports, from US networks NBC and CBS, that Israel was moving toward a long-threatened military strike came hours after the US announced it would evacuate some personnel from the region amid fears they could be targeted by Iran in reprisal actions.
The moves came after US President Donald Trump indicated he was no longer as confident as he had been previously that his administration could reach a deal with Iran, after negotiations appeared to snag over Tehran’s insistence that it be allowed to maintain low-level uranium enrichment.
A senior Iranian official told Reuters on Thursday that a “friendly” regional country had alerted Tehran over a potential military strike by Israel.
The official said tensions were intended to “influence Tehran to change its position about its nuclear rights” during talks with the United States set for Sunday in Oman, and vowed that Tehran would hold firm to its insistence on maintaining some enrichment.
Citing five unnamed sources familiar with the situation, NBC News reported that Israel was considering launching an attack on Iran within days and without the support of the US, which is still holding out hope for the talks.
According to the report, Israel was weighing the option of striking the Islamic Republic’s nuclear infrastructure, fearing that Washington could agree to a deal that falls short of its demands regarding Iran ending all nuclear enrichment.
Iran’s nuclear material is just in the form of a very hot heavy gas that turns solid when cool
Their nuclear material is in the form of a gas called Uranium hexafluoride which turns solid when cooled to below 56.5 C.
This photo shows a vial of Uranium hexafluoride gas turning solid as it cools.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_hexafluoride#Physical_properties
Iran's uranium hexafluoride is 60% enriched with Uranium 238. They could turn it into weapons grade Uranium Hexafluoride in a week using centrifuges. But that is NOT A NUKE. You can't make a nuke from uranium hexafluoride.
The gas itself isn’t even very radioactive. Not like e.g. cobalt 60 (used as an ionizing radiation source and dangerous to handle). You could hold it in your hands for hours and not be at significant risk.
What is special is it can sustain a chain reaction - if you get enough of it and compress it quickly then it will do a runaway reaction, turn very radioactive and explode. But you can’t compress it enough quickly enough to do that as a gas.
Here Elina Charatsidou a Ukrainian nuclear physicist handles natural uranium and nuclear fuel pellets with no special precautions. The fuel pellets have a few % of uranium 235. Her gloves are mainly to protect the pellets not her. Your skin can block out the alpha particles from even highly enriched uranium or plutonium and even a thin sheet of paper can stop them.
Queen Elizabeth was handed plutonium in a bag in 1935 and was invited to feel how warm it was. It was plated in gold. In 1945 Philip Morrison drove 210 miles with enough plutonium for the Trinity test explosion in two hemispheres on his lap and he lived to a very old age too.
QUOTE STARTS
On Thursday 12 July 1945 a US Army sedan drove Philip Morrison the 210 miles from Los Alamos to Alamagordo with the plutonium core of the world’s first nuclear weapon on his lap. At dawn four days later the priceless hemispheres the physicist had helped forge, then assembled, vanished in the highly successful Trinity nuclear test. The scientists who witnessed the test estimated the energy released equivalent to 18,600t of TNT.
,,,,
Morrison, like many intimately involved in the debut of this new metal, lived to a ripe old age. He died earlier this year, aged 89. Hans Bethe, who led the physicists who had conceived the new weapon, died in March, aged 98. Glenn Seaborg, the radiochemist who discovered plutonium in 1941 and wrote the rules for working with it, lived to 87. Edward Teller, who used plutonium to trigger a thermonuclear reaction for his H-bomb, died aged 94.
So prevalent was this mythology by 1977 that Mr Justice Parker, inspector at the Windscale Inquiry into an expansion of plutonium separation in the UK, listed seven “misunderstandings” in his report. Some prevail to this day.
As the late John Fremlin, professor of radioactivity at Birmingham University, famously advised that public inquiry, plutonium can be sat upon safely by someone wearing only a stout pair of jeans.
At Harwell in the 1950s the newly-crowned Queen Elizabeth was handed a lump of plutonium in a plastic bag and invited to feel how warm it was. Morrison had been protected from alpha rays from his hemispheres by nickel plating. The Aldermaston scientists used gold foil.
https://www.neimagazine.com/uncategorized/the-drama-of-plutonium/?cf-view
I need to be careful not to overstate things - this doesn’t mean it is okay to go around eating or breathing in large amounts of uranium or plutonium, but short of that, there isn’t any risk from just handling the metals with the recommended precuations of a thin barrier for alpha particles, even if they are enriched.
Uranium and plutonium are chemically toxic in large quanties though harmless in minute quantities. We all ingest minute amounts every day as both are present in very minute quantities. You shouldn’t eat plutonium or uranium or breathe in the dust.
This is for depleted uranium, with the radioactivity mostly removed. So it gives a good idea of uranium as a metal:
QUOTE STARTS
Like mercury, cadmium, and other heavy-metal ions, excess uranyl ions depress renal function. High concentrations in the kidney can cause damage and in extreme cases renal failure.
Furthermore, since DU is mildly radioactive, once inside the body it irradiates the organs. The main dose to the body organs will arise from the energy deposited in them from the emissions of the alpha particles. It is known that high doses of radiation can cause cancer. It is generally assumed for radiological protection purposes, that low doses of radiation can also cause cancer, but the lower the dose, the smaller the risk.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/depleted-uranium-du-general-information-and-toxicology
[This article doesn’t mention but it’s a respected minority that when the doses are small enough close to the natural levels of radioactivity that they may be completely harmless or even beneficial - at such low doses it’s hard to measure but the evidence is quite good]
Chemical compounds of uranium are found naturally, in trace amounts, in air, water, rock, soil, and materials made from natural substances. Small amounts are consumed and inhaled by everyone every day. In the UK the average daily consumption is about 3 micrograms (1 microgram (µg) = 0.000001 g) although it does depend on what people eat and drink. In some parts of the world the natural uranium consumption is higher than in the UK because of the underlying rock is rich in uranium. Consumption in parts of Canada can be hundreds of micrograms per day. It is estimated that the average person worldwide inhales 0.5 µg (14 mBq) and ingests 700 µg (18 Bq) each year in food and water.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/depleted-uranium-du-general-information-and-toxicology
On the possibility that low doses of radiation may be beneficial, we were adapted and evolved in its presence. The idea is that they stimulate the cell repair responses. For instance low dose radiation improves the longevity of stem cells.
QUOTE STARTS
The results show significant potential for the use of low-dose radiation to improve stem cell therapy. While non- irradiated stem cells aged significantly, cells treated with low-dose radiation demonstrated improved proliferation, mobility and chondogrenic differentiation capacity. Overall, these results provide the first evidence of delayed aging and improved functional properties of these specific stem cells.
CNL is now undertaking further studies to better understand the mechanisms behind the performance improvements.
https://www.cnl.ca/health-science-2/low-dose-radiation-research/
More evidence here including evidence that exposure to low levels of the naturally occuring radioactive radon gas reduces your risk to lung cancer (after adjusting to show only non smokers)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2664640/
It is early days and there's a lot of research to be done and it remains probably still minority view but it's approaching that tipping point where enough evidence accumulates to make it the new consensus.+
Iran’s six months period is to get as far as a crude nuke that likely weighs about 4 metric tons and can only be used in a test in Iran itself - but Iran is clearly not interested in starting on this path
It takes six months to get from the material they have to their first nuke. They then have to test it. Only after the test they then can start working on miniaturizing it. Until then the only way to get it to anywhere else would be to carry a big heavy bomb in a heavy bomber like the US did for Hiroshima and Nagasaki which is easy to shoot down in a modern war. That is what the 1 to 2 years is about. The Hiroshima bomb weighed 9000 pounds or 4 metric tons - gives you an idea of how heavy a crude first nuke weighs.
Iran have been at 1 week away from having enough nuclear material for a nuke since 2023. They have promised the IAEA chief weapons inspector not to do any more 60% enriched Uranium either.
Also, nobody gets nukes to use them. They get them to stop other people invading them.
Iran isn't mad either indeed Iran like Saudi Arabia wants a nuclear weapon free Middle East.
Nukes far less destructive than most realize - was one nuke going off somewhere in the world every week when I was a teenager
And nukes are likely far less destructive than you realize. When I was a teenager, someone was exploding a test nuke somewhere in the world roughly once every week.
The airbursts especially don't even leave much radioactivity, especially hydrogen bombs. The biggest nuclear bomb ever exploded produced so little radioactivity, as an air burst hydrogen bomb, that they had technicians safely visiting the site of the explosion 2 hours later.
For background here:
Iran clearly does not want nukes and has stopped enriching uranium - is not an ally of Russia - and wants security for itself and prosperity like most countries - no risk of a world war
I hope to help you see things a bit from Iran’s perspective. As we’ll see, Iran is clearly not interested in developing nukes any time soon. It has been within a fortnight of enough nuclear material to make a first crude nuke for over a year now. It would take about 6 months to make the first crude nuke it could only use in Iran. But it could have got a…
JCPOA took 20 months to reach agreement - hiccups like this are normal
These sort of hiccups are normal.
On the broader background, Khamenei did NOT reject the talks. He also didn't set a level of enrichment but he wants Iran to be able to do some level of urainium enrichment. That is a reasonable request if it is at low levels suitable for civilian reactorss, and can be monitored. So they will likely go back and forth on that during the talks.
The formal JCPOA talks lasted 20 months for the previous Iran deal until it was signed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action
QUOTE STARTS
But what Khamenei did not say in his speech matters as well. He didn’t reject the talks, which Iran views as crucial for its economy to lift some the crushing economic sanctions it faces.
Khamenei also did not insist on any specific level of nuclear enrichment. Iran now enriches uranium up to 60% — a short, technical step from weapons-grade levels.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who has led the talks with Witkoff, said Tehran soon will offer its response to the U.S. Khamenei’s speech Wednesday at the mausoleum of Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini may serve as a preview.
https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-nuclear-supreme-leader-khamenei-008d8b020be499c91b3caf345494e379
Iran much prefers to hold the talks secretly and not tell the world the are even happening indeed to deny them. This makes it easier for the sides to agree without external political pressures. But Trump isn’t willing to do that so unlike the original JCPOA talks the talks are widely publicise.
Iran is not an ally of Russia - they just agree not to provide military support to countries that attack the other partner - no agreement to support each other
The agreement Iran signed with Russia is just an agreement not to support a country attacking the other. It is not any kind of a military alliance.
The 20-year treaty that could be extended further covers all areas -– from trade and military cooperation to science, education and culture. It doesn’t envisage mutual assistance in case of aggression, but obliges both countries not to offer any military or other assistance to an aggressor attacking one of them.
. Russia and Iran have a troubled history despite their current alliance
So for instance Russia can’t provide military support to Israel or US if they attack Iran.
Also Iran can’t provide military support to Ukraine for as long as it is attacking Russia.
Putin has close ties with Jews in Russia and Russia used to be strongly in support of Israel - as a result of Ukraine war moved to neutral status not pro Iran
Russia is neutral on Israel - it doesn't support Iran against Israel. Russia’s official response:
"no matter what explanations those who planned, developed and carried out the attack on Iran may use to justify it, the crisis around the Iranian nuclear program cannot be resolved by military force and can be settled exclusively through peaceful, political and diplomatic means.
… We hope that this is the approach that will ultimately prevail. We call on the parties to exercise restraint in order to prevent further escalation of tensions and the region's slide into full-scale war. In this regard, we recall the US readiness to hold another round of talks with Iran on its nuclear program in Oman,
. Russia strongly condemns Israel’s attack against Iran — Foreign Ministry
TASS is accurate on Russia's own official statements.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: (NEEDS TO BE UPDATED TO MATCH IMAGE)
Berel Lazar, chief rabbi of Russia.
Sometimes called Putin’s rabbi because of his close connections with putin. Putin was brought up friends with Jews next door and has a long and close connection with Russian Jews.
1.5 million Russian Jews + families in Israel. Russia was very pro Israel before the Ukraine war and is now resolutely neutra on Iran v. Israel.
Graphic: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Berel_Lazar_April_2021_(cropped).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
Russia used to be strongly in support of Israel and moved to a more neutral stance as a result of the Ukraine war where they are fighting a country led by a Jew, Zelensky.
But Putin has close ties with Jews in Russia, was brought up neighbours to a Jewish family in St Petersburg that his family was on close terms with
. A Surprising Story Behind Putin's Love of Jews
Putin has a close connection with a rabbi often referred to as Putin's rabbi, as Wikipedia puts it:
QUOTE Because of his connections to Russian President Vladimir Putin he is sometimes called "Putin's rabbi."
There are large numbers of former USSR Jews in Israel. About 900,000 or 1.5 milion if you also add non Jewish members of Jewish households from Russia.
So that’s the background and helps explain why Putin has been a strong supporter of Israel for a long time. He shifted though during the Ukraine war. So he is no longe a super strong supporter of Israel but there is no way he’d ever be opposed to Israel.
Russia has indeed moved towards closer to Iran. But it would NOT support Hezbollah or Hamas or other enemies of Israel.
So no Russia will certainly not support Iran in any war with Israel. But it is prepared to support Iran generally with both defence and offence.
Russia and Iran were involved togther in propping up Assad's regime. There Putin's main interest was the access to the Mediteranean for his ships in the port of Tartus, also a nearby air base.
With both of those now under HTS control and Russia set to leave Syria, Russia and Iran have much less in common in the Middle East.
So it is much more now a case of a mutual military support, Iran provides weapons fro the war with Ukraine especially the shahed drones - but it won't give its longer range missiles to Russia.
The text isn't public but it's likely that under the agreement, Russia will give Iran more air defences to replace the ones that Israel destroyed in its last raid.
However that’s not such a great deal for Iran as the Israeli F-35s destroyed all the S-300 air defences in just a single raid and from the experience of Ukraine in Russia, even if Russia replaces them all with S-400s, Israel can likely destroy them just as quickly (not likely to replace with S-500s but the F-35s can likely destroy those as quickly too). Ukraine has destroyed many S-400 systems in Ukraine, search for “S-400” in list here
. Attack On Europe: Documenting Russian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine
Right now Russia is very short of air defences to protect itself against Ukrainian attacks so it likely can't offer that much to Iran.
Iran also wants more advanced Russian fighter jets but those also are no match for the F-35.
QUOTE STARTS
Iran, in turn, wants sophisticated Russian weapons like long-range air defense systems and fighter jets to help fend off possible attacks by Israel. Russia has supplied Iran with S-300 air defense missile systems in the past, and there have been reports in Iranian media of potential interest in buying more advanced systems such as the S-400 and acquiring advanced Russian fighter jets.
Tehran has long hoped to obtain advanced Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets from Russia to upgrade its aging fleet that’s been hobbled by international sanctions, but only received a few Yak-130 trainer jets in 2023.
. Russia, Iran deepen defense ties as Putin and Pezeshkian sign 20-year pact
Russia did eventually sell those Su-35s to Iran and what’s more, gave Iran the license to make them itself.
However though they are a major upgrade of Iran’s antique fleet they again are no match for the NATO F-35s that Israel has.
So Russia wouldn’t join in to support Iran in any war with Israel and it has given Israel mainly defensive equipment. It can sell (not donate) equipment as a supplier but no more.
Russia would NOT help Iran to develop nukes
Russia is NOT keen on proliferation. Iran is likely to be fickle and could turn against Russia in the future. Russia knows that and so they can't have a very close alliance. Not like NATO. There is no way Russia would cooperate with Iran on nukes.
For more about all this:
Iran clearly does not want nukes and has stopped enriching uranium - is not an ally of Russia - and wants security for itself and prosperity like most countries - no risk of a world war
I hope to help you see things a bit from Iran’s perspective. As we’ll see, Iran is clearly not interested in developing nukes any time soon. It has been within a fortnight of enough nuclear material to make a first crude nuke for over a year now. It would take about 6 months to make the first crude nuke it could only use in Iran. But it could have got a…
Iran can’t start any kind of a world war - no force projection beyond the Middle East
Iran has no ability or interest in expanding a war beyond the region and Russia would certainly not support it,
Russia is neutral on Israel v. Iran with many Russian jews in Israel and the Chief Rabbi of Russia one of Putin's closer friends - and is so pre-occupied with Ukraine it didn't even support Assad when their base at Tartus was threatened.
Russia did nothing to help Iran to replace the Russian air defences that Israel destroyed in a single day in Iran.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Wars in the Middle East always STAY IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Example: 1991: Gulf war to liberate Kuwait after invasion by Iraq.
UK’s biggest foreign war since WW2. ALL THESE COUNTRIES fought Iraq - NEVER COULD BE A WORLD WAR.
Russia and China neutral.
Most fighting here: (arrow to Kuwait).
UK sent 35,000 soldiers and 13,000 vehicles.
Numbers of soldiers and vehicles from here: Gulf War | National Army Museum
Map of combatants from here: File:Coalition of the Gulf War vs Iraq.svg - Wikimedia Commons
Map of Iraq and Kuwait from here: Gulf War | National Army Museum
Background oil painting: British infantry vehicles advancing, Iraq, 1991 Oil on board by Captain Jonathan Wade, Royal Highland Fusiliers, 1992.
Imperial war museum IWM Non-Commercial Licence
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Iran doesn't have ICBM capabilities- it can put satellites into orbit
- but has not mastered ICBM re-entry
Iran hasn't even tried.
- Ballistic missiles are hypersonic.
- ICBMs enter at Mach 17+.
This is vastly more challenging to design for.
Iran's main aim is a CEASEFIRE
Russia is NOT an ally of Iran and will stay out of any fight with Israel.
Iranian militants have killed opponents with car bombs globally but it DOES NOT do ISIS / Al Qaeda type terrorism - it FOUGHT ISIS in Syria.
There is simply NO WAY that Iran can bring a war to UK or US or anywhere outside the Middle East.
Iran does NOT have nukes and nukes CAN'T WIN WARS.
Israel is still out of range for 1/3 of Iran
Iran has only 3 frigates and they would take 6 days to reach UK at maximum speed - NO CHANCE OF ATTACKING THE UK OR USA
Iran and its proxies can't start a world war even if they wanted to which they don't. Iran's longer range missiles have only a bit more range than is needed to get from the closest place in Iran to Israel (which is nearly 1000 km) - indeed even their very longest distance missile with a range of 2000 km can't reach Israel from the far side of Iran from Israel.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Why there is absolutely no possibility of the US being hit as a result of ANYTHING that goes on in the Middle East.
Israel has invaded Lebanon several times including in 2006. The US is not likely to get involved except shooting incoming missiles.i
Nobody in the Middle East opposed to the US or Israel is even able to fire weapons to another continent. The longest range of the Iranian missiles is 2000 km. They need most of that range just to reach Israel from Iran.
An intercontinental missile is 5,500 km. The shortest distance from Iran to the US is far more even than that.
Why there is NO RISK EVER of a world war from yet one more conflict in the Middle East of many (basic geography few seem to know on social media).
Shortest distance from Iran to USA 8,400+ km.
Maximum range for Iran's missiles:2000 km.
Iran is NOT able to attack the US.
The US has been involved in many conflicts in the Middle East including its invasion of Iraq and the Gulf war.
These do NOT lead to world wars and CAN’T.
Russia: neutral to Israel and Hezbollah / Hamas
China: no interest in Israel just oil from Middle East
Israel: neutral to Russia and Ukraine.
This time the US is NOT involved except to protect Israel from incoming missiles.
Israel and Iran do NOT want to fight each other either - both trying to give an appearance of strength without provoking an increase in conflict.
No risk of the conflicts joining up
There is NO RISK of the conflicts "joining up". Iran has no interest in attacking Ukraine it is just a commercial opportunity especially with the sanctions and an opportunity to improve its weapons. Russia has no interest in attacking Israel. China has no interest in either and neither of those have any interest in Taiwan. North Korea has no interest in Israel or Ukraine - it is a quid for quo exchange much like mercenaries with Russia. China is not close to Russia at all and gouges it for all it can economically.
None of these are allies with each other in the NATO sense. In theory Russia and Norht Korea have some kind of mutual defence pact but so also does North Korea and China, in reality neither woudl defend North Korea against South Korea and North Korea is only interested in South Korea.
None of these countries have navies or airforces able to operate at a distance thousands of miles away either. Russia lost its only port outside of the former Soviet Union in Tartus. China's only foreign port is in Djibouti a country it shares with many other bases from countries like Japan, US, UK etc.
This is not at all likely to become an all-out war between Iran and Israel. The main risk is of extended Israeli strikes as are already happening - and then Iran responding in some way to Israel. They used to talk about a regional conflict in the MIddle East. That meant Iran together with Lebanon, Syria, and some support from subversive militants in Iraq and the Houthi rebels firing cruise missiles from thousands of miles away - and minute contribution from teh Houthi regels. All fighting Israel with US supporting Israel.
Now it is just Iran exchanging missiles with Israel with 1000 km between their borders at the closest point and no way for the land army in either country to reach the other country. And Houthi rebels could join in with more missiles from even further away, greatly depleted. That is not a world war.
Iran has no force projectdion at all outside the MIddle East it would have to set off with three frigates, a few diesel subs that need frequent refueling on a quixotic mission to tryu to invade teh US or UK makes no sense. Russia and China woudln't join in.
So no there is no possiblity of a world war from any of this.
Russia can't fight a world war either it just doesn't have the military capability to do that. Only firing missiles at a distance which would turn out very badly for Russia not invade anywhere on the ground or from the sea or air. Except the Baltic States - but NATO is far too powerful for it to try that. Or Georgia. Once it is no longer totally caught up in Ukraien Georgia sadly may be at risk but that's about it.
And India and Pakistan can't fight a world war either.
The only country that plausibly could fight a world war is the US, with the help of UK and France. If they wanted to fight a war against the rest of the world they have the capability apart from the nuclear deterrents of Russia, China, and Inda but they have absolutely no expansive intention despite Russia's claims.
NATO's expansion has been through countries joining it voluntarily and they can only join after first ensuring they have no territorial disputes that NATO will need to enter into and support on their side.
See my section here:
Why we do NOT risk a world war from: Ukraine, the Middle East, China, North Korea, or anywhere else in the world - next to impossible - and longer term are headed for a future without any war
For a first overview look at the graphics, read the bullet points summary, and read the section titles in the contents list - then dive into more detail in any section of interest. If you are on the laptop you can also navigate to any section by clicking on the column of horizontal dashes you see to the left of this page.
See also my:
Why we do NOT risk a world war from: Ukraine, the Middle East, China, North Korea, or anywhere else in the world - next to impossible - and longer term are headed for a future without any war
For a first overview look at the graphics, read the bullet points summary, and read the section titles in the contents list - then dive into more detail in any section of interest. If you are on the laptop you can also navigate to any section by clicking on the column of horizontal dashes you see to the left of this page.
Also
Iran clearly does not want nukes and has stopped enriching uranium - is not an ally of Russia - and wants security for itself and prosperity like most countries - no risk of a world war
I hope to help you see things a bit from Iran’s perspective. As we’ll see, Iran is clearly not interested in developing nukes any time soon. It has been within a fortnight of enough nuclear material to make a first crude nuke for over a year now. It would take about 6 months to make the first crude nuke it could only use in Iran. But it could have got a…
Nothing to do with the political geography of the Bible 2000 years ago
The Bible doesn't talk just about other countries around Israel but the entire world.
In reality Israel is at peace now with ALL its neighbours. Iran is 1000 km away at its closest.
Nobody outside the region would support Iran in a war.
None of the other Muslim countries in the region support Iran not even Syria or Lebanon any more.
Only the Houthi rebels in Yemen and some Iraqi insurrectionists not the government.
When they talk about a regional war it used to mean Iran, Lebanon, and Syria with some support from the Houthi rebels and insurrectionists in Iraq, and Hamas able to fire a few rockets.
Now it just means Iran v. Israel with a small amount of support from Houthi rebels firing missiles from thousands of miles away and with no common land border between Iran and Israel and no way for either army to get to the other army on land.
That could hardly be further from those 2000 year old books.
The book of Revelation reasonalby accurately describes the Middle east at the time of Jesus but it is not remotely relevant to the Middle EAst of today
It's not meant to describe the geography of the world 2000 years later. There are timeless messages there but not about political geography.
Because of course that changes in 2000 years and the idea that it would remain the same or repeat itself makes no sense.
It was written before there were Muslims.
I have a blog post about it
We will NOT get a global world worshipping emperor “Beast” as a result of the Hamas terrorist attack - NO EMPEROR WORSHIP in most of the world since the fall of the Roman empire
There is NO RISK of world war from Hamas. Hamas is just terrorism and counterterrorism, no way that Jordan or Egypt get involved, Iran is the only country in the region supporting Hamas or Hezbollah, and it won't attack directly
Contents
Iran’s nuclear material is just in the form of a very hot heavy gas that turns solid when cool
Iran can’t start any kind of a world war - no force projection beyond the Middle East
Nothing to do with the political geography of the Bible 2000 years ago
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL
You can Direct Message me on Substack - but I check this rarely. Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.
SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS
You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.
CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
NEW SHORT DEBUNKS
I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.
I often write them up as “short debunks”
See Latest short debunks for new short debunks
I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:
I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.
I go through phases when I do lots of short debunks. Recently I’ve taken to converting comments in the group into posts in the group that resemble short debunks and most of those haven’t yet been copied over to the wiki.
TIPS FOR DEALING WITH DOOMSDAY FEARS
If suicidal or helping someone suicidal see my:
BLOG: Supporting someone who is suicidal
If you have got scared by any of this, health professionals can help. Many of those affected do get help and find it makes a big difference.
They can’t do fact checking, don’t expect that of them. But they can do a huge amount to help with the panic, anxiety, maladaptive responses to fear and so on.
Also do remember that therapy is not like physical medicine. The only way a therapist can diagnose or indeed treat you is by talking to you and listening to you. If this dialogue isn’t working for whatever reason do remember you can always ask to change to another therapist and it doesn’t reflect badly on your current therapist to do this.
Also check out my Seven tips for dealing with doomsday fears based on things that help those scared, including a section about ways that health professionals can help you.
I know that sadly many of the people we help can’t access therapy for one reason or another - usually long waiting lists or the costs.
There is much you can do to help yourself. As well as those seven tips, see my:
BLOG: Breathe in and out slowly and deeply and other ways to calm a panic attack
BLOG: Tips from CBT
— might help some of you to deal with doomsday anxieties
PLEASE DON’T COMMENT HERE WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER TOPICS - INSTEAD COMMENT ON POST SET UP FOR IT
PLEASE DON'T COMMENT ON THIS POST WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OTHER TOPIC:
INSTEAD PLEASE COMMENT HERE:
The reason is I often can’t respond to comments for some time. The unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else
Also even an answered comment may scare them because they see the comment before my reply.
It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.
It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here.
This is specifically about anything that might scare people on a different topic.
PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE
This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.
We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.
If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.
But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.
If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.
It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.
PLEASE DON'T COMMENT ON THIS POST WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OTHER TOPIC:
INSTEAD PLEASE COMMENT ON THE SPECIAL SEPARATE POST I SET UP HERE: https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/post-to-comment-on-with-off-topic-940
The reason is I often aren't able to respond to comments for some time and the unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else
Also even when answered the comment may scare them because they see it first.
It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.
It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here - this is specifically about things you want help with that might scare people.
PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE
This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.
We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.
If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.
But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.
If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.
It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.
Thanks!
Wow, this aged well.