Why Iran and Israel are fighting - about whether Iran can enrich uranium - and no possibility of ground war at all - not regional or world war - symbolic blows by Iran counter serious attack by Israel
[MID EDIT WILL CLOSE COMMENTS FOR NOW]
This is taking a while to write. I expect it to take another couple of hours or more to finish it and meanwhile I thought I should share it “as is” as it’s difficult to find the time to finish it right now and even in its unfinished shape it will help some scared people. Do message me if you see anything to fix and I’ve disabled commenrs because there is little point in comments until it is in a better shape. But if scared do contact me or comment on the previous post on the same topic in my substack.
Israel
want’s to destroy Iran's facility in Fordow
Fordow enriches uranium to 60% and could enrich it to 90% to make a nuke
but it is deep underground and far from Israel and that combination makes destroying it impossible.
United States
has bunker busting bombs that could destroy Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities at Fordow
So
Israel asked US to help it destroy Fordow
US says “No” it wants to do things by negotiating with Iran not attacking Iran.
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/14/israel-iran-war-us-nuclear-program-trump
This makes it really really clear that the US was NOT behind what Israel did.
First if you haven’t read it:
Iran clearly does not want nukes - 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…
Perhaps I can help explain why there is no risk of a world war by sharing three graphics. I will assume you can see the graphics and read in English. Don’t worry if you can’t as I go through the graphics again with text later. I’ll do a short summary for each one.
This is the conflict (not really a war) that everyone is tweeting about etc today:
It’s Israel v. Iran, they can’t drive up to each other’s borders so the most can happen is that they fire missiles at each other from a distance until they decide to stop. Israel started it and Iran will stop responding when Israel stops.
This is the Gulf war in 1991.
42 countries from every continent except Antarctica fought Iraq on the ground, in the air and in the sea
And this explains why there can’t be any world war from Iran.
Iran simply doesn’t have the capability to attack Western Europe or the Americas even if that was its wish which it is not. There is no way for its planes, or its diesel subs or its missiles or its three small frigates to get to Western Europe or the Americas and it’s not even interested.
And Russia and China won’t get involved.
Netanyahu often FALSELY implies that Iran could attack Western Europe or the Americas.
Iran does have the ability to fire something that far because it can put small satellites into orbit. What it can’t do though is the ICBM re-entry.
If a satellite re-enters without an aeroshell it just burns up with very little reaching the ground.
The Apollo astronauts used an aeroshell for re-entry - this needs testing but is relatively simple to do and Iran could develop it successfully based on open source knowledge very quickly. However this is militarily useless.
The Apollo capsule bounced on the top of the atmosphere in order to slow down to a precise landing - this would make it very easy to intercept for military applications. It would also land slowly at around terminal velocity. This is militarily useless.
An ICBM like the US minueman III is designed to go through the atmosphere as fast as possible with an aerodynamic shape, is maneuverable and it requires specialist materials. The details of how to design an ICBM are highly classified and it takes many tests before an aspiring nation develops an ICBM.
Iran has shown no interest in that. It’s space technology is just for observation, civilian or spy satellites. It only needs a ranage of 2000 km which is more than enough to reach Israel and US and other bases in the nearby Middle East. 2000 km is plenty for that and it has no interest in targets outside the Middle East. Re-entry is technically far far simpler for 2000 km and similar to the technology for supersonic flight.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Netanyahu: "If Israel falls [NO RISK], entire world will follow [FALSE]"
Published: 28-10-2024
Israeli Occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Tel Aviv faces an unprecedented challenge that threatens the Middle East and the entire world, claiming Iran is working to develop nuclear weapons aimed at destroying "Israel" and possesses long-range missile capabilities reaching intercontinental targets.
Netanyahu accused Iran of supplying its regional proxies with deadly weapons, positioning Israeli Occupation as a barrier against what he called a global threat. He stated: "If Israel falls, the whole world falls. But we will not lose; we will win for all humanity."
Main Points (center, in red):
Iran does not have ICBM re-entry technology
Without re-entry technology anything fired at intercontinental range will just burn up on re-entry
Iran does have the ability to put small satellites in orbit
But they would just burn up on re-entry
Right side visuals:
(Image: Apollo capsule re-entering Earth's atmosphere)
Apollo 11 re-entry – skipping on atmosphere for controlled landing – comparatively simple to design
(Image: Minuteman III ICBM re-entry vehicle)
Minuteman III ICBM re-entry minimizes time in the atmosphere and maintains precise targeting – an extreme challenge requiring many tests and specialist materials
Summary (bottom, in blue):
Iran hasn’t even developed aeroshell re-entry and it hasn’t got the slightest interest in ICBM re-entry – range is 2000 km to reach Israel from most of Iran.
Image credits:
Apollo re-entry capsule with aeroshell: NASA
Minuteman III ICBM: US Air force graphic
Netanyahu’s hyperbole is from here https://en.royanews.tv/news/60437
Do you see how you are safe?
I say no risk of Israel falling - even in that worst case future of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel all with declared nukes, Iran and Saudi Arabia would be calling all the time for denuclearization and use their own nukes as a leverage to try to get Israel to disarm.
Few seem to know but Iran was involved in negotations for the Treaty to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons, which has now entered into force and binds all countries that ratify it.
Iran wants all countries to adhere to it - it requres countries with nukes to eliminate them unilaterally as soon as they can. Iran wants to promote it further with a global conference to start the process of eliminating all nukes. It has voted for this resolution consistently ever since 2018.
QUOTE STARTS
Iran has promoted universal adherence to the TPNW, including by consistently voting in favour of an annual UN General Assembly resolution since 2018 that calls upon all states to sign, ratify, or accede to the treaty “at the earliest possible date”.
In a statement to the United Nations in September 2017, the then-minister of foreign affairs of Iran, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said that Iran supports the “overall objective” of the TPNW and believes “that it will reinforce the nuclear disarmament regime”.
In 2022, Iran described the adoption of the TPNW as “a right step in the right direction” and complementary to the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968. But it said that the TPNW “should also be complemented by the urgent commencement of negotiations and the conclusion of a comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons”.
Israel on the other hand isn’t even a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty and it doesn’t let the atomic inspectors for the IAEA inspect its nukes, by simply not declaring it has them. You can see it as one of the few red dots that don’t permit atomic inspectors and don’t agree to the treaty. India is the largest non signatory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons
So - though Iran uses hyperbole about wiping Israel off the map too, both sides use hyperbole but in reality Iran is the country of the two, Israel and Iran, that is most compliant with the Non Proliferation Treaty - it has ratified it and it claims that it is only developing civilian capabilities and it lets atomic inspectors inspect its facilities.
I think it is useful to know this because the Israeli stereotype of Iran as a country that is racing to develop nukes as soon as possible is so very far from the truth.
What Iran wants is to have the ability to make nukes but never make them.
It is not really a single entity of course. Some hardliners in Iran want to develop a nuke. But the Ayatollah and the president certainly don’t. The Ayatollah has the final word on everything.
Iran’s real concern is the example of Libya. Colonel Gadafi gave up his nuclear technology. Just a few years later an alliance led by the US destablized his governmetn with an attack which led to Gadafi dying horribly from a lynch mob and Libya has been an unstable country without a single government ever since then.
This of course is not to support either Gadaffi or the Ayatollah. It is to help you see why the Ayatollah has these contradictory seeming positions
wants the world to move rapidly to eliminate all nukes as fast as posible INCLUDING ISRAEL
wants to have the ability to be able to make nukes quickly or as long as this doens’t happen to avoid the fate of Gadafi and Libya
Israel by bombing Iran and assassinating Iranian generals is underlining the Ayatollahs’ worst fears.
He will want very robust security guarantees in any peace treaty after this.
Most people don’t know these things and it is hard to understand the dynamics of what is happeing between Iran and Israel if you don’t know these basic points.
See also
Iran clearly does not want nukes - 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…
What actually happened in the
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1933875498104324299
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spice_(bomb)
Short summary of why there is no risk of a world war from Iran - Iran can’t fight the world and doesn’t want to
This is the same section as above but with text for the graphics for those that need screen readers. Just skip the graphics if you don’t need them repeated.
Perhaps I can help explain why there is no risk of a world war by sharing three graphics. I will assume you can see the graphics and read in English. Don’t worry if you can’t as I go through the graphics again with text later. I’ll do a short summary for each one.
This is the conflict (not really a war) that everyone is tweeting about etc today:
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Not the remotest risk of a regional war or a world war!!
No Iranian proxies left near Israel
Approx. 1,500 Kilometers
Israel is NOT able to drive up to Iran on the ground
Iran is NOT able to fly to Israel
by the geography this can only be a VERY limited exchange
Iran's only proxy: the Houthis 2000 km from Israel to the South
Israel didn't have help of the US
didn't have in flight refueling
flew the short way over Syria and Iraq
only possible because of fall of Assad
used F-16 fighter jets with three external fuel tanks each and two bombs each
It couldn't fly over Jordan
Iraq also objected to the US but the US didn't stop the flightsNo help from the US, only weak involvement is that the US didn't prohibit flight over Iraq.
US did NOT authorize it.
US refuses Israel's request to destroy the high enrichment facilities in Fordow
Nobody will join Iran
US says it will only defend IsraelMap combines https://en.royanews.tv/news/60412 and Google maps
It’s Israel v. Iran, they can’t drive up to each other’s borders so the most can happen is that they fire missiles at each other from a distance until they decide to stop. Israel started it and Iran will stop responding when Israel stops.
This is the Gulf war in 1991.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Wars in the Middle East always STAY IN THE MIDDLE EAST
1991 Gulf war to liberate Kuwait from Iraq.
42 other countries from every continent except Antarctica fought against Iraq in the Gulf war - NOT A WORLD WAR
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
42 countries from every continent except Antarctica fought Iraq on the ground, in the air and in the sea
And this explains why there can’t be any world war from Iran.
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’s missiles can’t get here
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
Iran can (or could) put small satellites into orbit. What it can’t do though is the ICBM re-entry. If a satellite re-enters without an aeroshell it just burns up like a fireball with very little reaching the ground.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Iran does not have ICBM re-entry technology
Without re-entry technology anything fired at intercontinental range will just burn up on re-entry
Iran does have the ability to put small satellites in orbit
But they would just burn up on re-entry
(Image: Apollo capsule re-entering Earth's atmosphere)
Apollo 11 re-entry – skipping on atmosphere for controlled landing – comparatively simple to design
(Image: Minuteman III ICBM re-entry vehicle)
Minuteman III ICBM re-entry minimizes time in the atmosphere and maintains precise targeting – an extreme challenge requiring many tests and specialist materials
Iran hasn’t even developed aeroshell re-entry and it hasn’t got the slightest interest in ICBM re-entry – range is 2000 km to reach Israel from most of Iran.
Image credits:
Apollo re-entry capsule with aeroshell: NASA
Minuteman III ICBM: US Air force graphic
Iran simply doesn’t have the capability to attack Western Europe or the Americas even if that was its wish which it is not. There is no way for its planes, or its diesel subs or its missiles or its three small frigates to get to Western Europe or the Americas and it’s not even interested.
And Russia and China won’t get involved.
What Iran and Israel are fighting about - the final form of the Iran deal - no possibility of world war - or even regional war - Iran does only symbolic blows back for Israeli attacks - peace talks can resume once Israel decides it's finished - or Iran drops goal of civilian enrichment of uranium
Iran wants to be able to enrich Uranium to civilian levels in the deal. Israel wants to prevent that. Iran has lots of political divisions and some in the hard right might want to develop a nuke but Iran has a moderate pro Western president now and the Ayatollah has never been keen on developing nukes who has the last word on everything. Iran has been six months away from its first nuke for over a year now. It's got a slightly radioactive gas called Uranium hexafluoride at 60% enrichment and it has centrifuges it could use to enrich it up to 90% in a few days (if the gas still exists after the Israeli strikes).
You can't make a nuke from gas so that's why it is six months away from its first nuclear test.
Apart from some firebrands, Iran doesn't want to develop nukes, never has. It was one of the countries that promoted the treaty to eliminate all nukes but it never signed or ratified it because of Israel. Saudi Arabia, Arabic "enemy" of Iran supported the same treaty.
So Iran and Saudi Arabia want a nuclear free ME if only Israel would disclose its nukes, open them to weapons inspectors and start a process of disarmament too. But Israel won't do that.
Also Iran worries about not having the capability to develop nukes because of the example of Gadafi in Libya - it gave up its nuclear technology and a few years later the country was invaded and Gadafi had a horrible death at the hands of crowds.
Iran like Saudi Arabia wants a nuclear free Middle East if only Israel would give up its nukes too and it could have some guarantee it won't be treated like Libya if it gives up its nuclear capabaility.
Iran would still have the ability to run nuclear reactors under the deal but not the ability to enrich uranium and it worries that this would make it vulnerable.
So Israel by attacking Iran and showing how vulnerable it is to military strikes of course causes problems for the Iranian regime.
So that's the political background.
Ignore the WW3 memes which have been running since early days of social media - first widely shared WW3 meme 2011 to 2012,
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Mind less meme time
1. Iran has no nukes only slightly radioactive uranium heafluoride gas
2. Iran's missiles are designed to hit Israel, 1000 km away at closest
3. Iran's missiles have a maximum range of 2000 km.
4. Iran has only 3 frigates and some disel subs which can get nowhere near US.
5. Iran's fighter jets can't even get to Israel
6. Russia: neutral on Israel asks both to stop
History of online WW3 memes goes back to 2011/2.
This is the second WW3 meme identified on social media in 2012. A clain that world wars should come in threes because humans love trilogies.
In actuality wars frequently come in twos.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Examples of twos:
Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers
Laurel and Hardy
Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson
Tom and Jerry
Batman and Robin
Sponge Bob and Patrick
Wright Brothers
Brothers Grimm
John Lennon and Paul McCartneyExamples of movies with only one sequel:
Grease
Gremlins
2010 a Space Odyssey
Monsters Inc.Wars also typically come in twos not threes
Opium wars
Balkan wars
Mongol invasions
Persian conquests of Greece.
Boer wars
Gulf war followed by Iraq war both with Iraq
Gulf war and Iraq warWars often come in twos - first war establishing nature of rivalry, second war resolves the issues by victory or exhaustion.
For links to the example wars see my conversation with Perplexity AI here:
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/some-good-examples-to-help-sca-m9JR.DR1QbCAI_sFd0uWzA
It is great for finding things like this though you do have to double check what it says. The good thing about Perplexity AI is that it gives cites that actually work.
Took off in 2017.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/world-war-iii
Nothing new compared to previous decades just the presence of social media to sahre them online.
This is very minor.
Compare the earlier Gulf war - that was the first large-scale use of Tomahawk cruise missiles and the news was full of stories about those and how precise they were, they were quite scary to us back then because we hadn't seen anything remotely like them in war before and few in the public even knew that the US had a weapon that could fly low over the ground not be detected and precisely hit just one particular apartment in a building.
Yet now nobody thinks twice about them.
It involved 42 countries actively fighting from every continent except Antarctica. What would X / Twitter or Facebook made of that?!
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Wars in the Middle East always STAY IN THE MIDDLE EAST
1991 Gulf war to liberate Kuwait from Iraq.
42 other countries from every continent except Antarctica fought against Iraq in the Gulf war - NOT A WORLD WAR
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
I bet WW3 would have trended then again if we had had social media. But no risk whatsoever.
Or, what would you all be saying right now if this was 2003 with UK, US, Australia and Poland invading Iraq?
This was before the first ever WW3 meme on social media.
If it was today the whole blogosphere and social media would be shouting WW3 over and over for the entire invasion!
We'd be here reassuring scared people
every day for three weeks!
also the build up for it, endless talk about whether to invade or not, whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or not.
many people protesting in the streets saying our governments must not do it and saying there's no evidence of nukes (which there wasn't).
Social media would have been shouting to the world that Iraq had nukes (it didn’t)
But there was never any risk of a world war and there isn't today either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
This time it can't even be a land war, only missiles from a distance.
Iran has atomic inspectors and the US and the IAEA are confident it hasn’t got any nukes.
And nukes are nothing like as powerful as most of you think.
The issue is click bait and the always on 24/7 news cycle and our society not quite adapted to this new situation.
We can and are adapting. Our voluntary fact checking group is part of it. Also people gradually learning not to trust random unreliable posts on the internet.
Check us too. Make sure we use good reliable sources for our fact checking and if you can, try to learn how to do the fact checking yourself too.
Oil prices effects minor and Goldman Sachs say unlikely to become significant for the summer
There are some small changes already - this is just market jitters. The national average is well below the price a year ago of $3.46 at $3.13. It could go up to £3.38 over the next few weeks.
So far Iran isn't doing anything to block oil. It's just jitters in case it does. If Iran does block the oil, it doesn't go up much because they buy gasoline from refiners and the refiners buy crude oil and it takes weeks to refine the crude oil so its price rises are cushioned unless sustained.
Iran could try to close the Strait of Hormuz but if it does the US Navy is nearby to open it again. It could attack tankers and mine the strait to disrupt it for longer. But Goldman Sachs see the chance of an extended disruption as low and they don't expect oil disruptions to have much effect on summer prices.
If there was an incident of some sort that led to extended closure then Trump may be able to persuade OPEC to release some of their spare production, or he could release the strategic oil reserve as Biden did in his term at one point. That is a large quantity of oil that the US keeps in reserve which it can release to help keep the prices in control if there is a big spike.
QUOTE STARTS
De Haan told CNN that gasoline prices are likely to drift higher over the next few weeks, increasing by about 10 to 25 cents per gallon. The national average for regular gas stood at just $3.13 a gallon on Friday, according to AAA. That’s down from $3.16 a month ago and well below the year-ago level of $3.46.
...
Any effort to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz would also have to contend with the US Navy, which is positioned nearby in part due to such a threat.
Croft, a former CIA analyst, said it would be “extremely difficult for Iran to close the strait for an extended period given the presence of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.”
Still, Croft noted that Iran could attack tankers and mine the waterway to disrupt traffic.
Goldman Sachs estimates that oil prices could blow past $100 a barrel if there is an “extended disruption” to the Strait of Hormuz, because such an unlikely event could prevent core OPEC producers, like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, from ramping up production.
However, Goldman Sachs views a disruption to the Strait of Hormuz as “much less likely” and on Friday only slightly increased its summertime oil price forecast.
“We still assume no disruptions to oil supply in the Middle East,” Goldman Sachs strategists led by Daan Struyven, co-lead of the bank’s commodity research team, wrote in a report to clients.
...
One option is that Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations could accelerate recent production increases that began earlier this year.
“If oil is caught in the cross-fire,” RBC’s Croft said, “we anticipate that President Trump will seek OPEC spare barrels to try to keep a lid on prices and shield US consumers from the economic impact of the Middle East conflict.”
Goldman Sachs assumes that if Iranian oil exports plunge by 1.76 million barrels per day during the conflict, core OPEC+ production would make up half of the Iranian shortfall. In that scenario, Goldman Sachs estimates that Brent crude would climb above $90 a barrel before declining back to between $60 and $70 next year.
...
Another option: The United States and other major oil consumers could release emergency oil stockpiles, as they did in 2022. Former President Joe Biden aggressively drained the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to prevent gas prices from spiking even higher after Russia invaded Ukraine.
“We’re ready to act if needed,” Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, said in a post earlier on Friday.
Birol said the IEA, which is an intergovernmental organization that coordinates the use of member states’ oil reserves, is “actively monitoring” the situation and noted that the group’s oil security system has more than 1.2 billion barrels of emergency oil stockpiles.
OPEC, which represents oil producing countries, strongly pushed back at those comments on Friday.
In a statement on X, OPEC’s secretary general argued that the IEA statement “raises false alarms and projects a sense of market fear through repeating the unnecessary need to potentially use oil emergency stocks.”
Still, releasing emergency oil is an option that Trump could at least hint at to cool off energy prices if the situation in the Middle East escalates.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/13/business/iran-israel-gas-prices-oil
Impossible for China, Russia, Iran, North Korea to deploy and sustain significant military forces in distant countries far from their borders - only countries in NATO can do this “force projection”
In short, nNo country except NATO members can attack any other countries beyond the immediate area around their own territory (with the exception of some very weak countries in Africa that have on occasion been taken over by a small group of modern soldiers and modern weapons).
Iran can only attack neighbouring territories. It can't really invade Israel because it has no borders in common - they are 1000 km apart at their closest points.
China can only attack Taiwan - and a very, very difficult job that would be.
Russia has only a few neighbours it can attack - Ukraine and Georgia, while Russia is no match for its neighbours in NATO.
Russia has no foreign ports outside the former Soviet Union and it has no chance of invading a foreign country with a big fleet of ships and submarines. It doesn't even have a functional aircraft carrier which means its bombers and fighter jets can't travel far beyond Russia's borders especially given the many countries that could shoot them down.
The problems are with
1. getting the offensive equipment there such as bombers, fighter jets, ships, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, etc.
2. supplying the invasion force, fuel, food, water, explosives etc. This is called "logistics".
I.e. to deploy and sustain the forces anywhere in the world.
The combination of the two, the ability to quickly expand a presence anywhere in the world and sustain it is called "projecting power"
Only NATO members can do this, such as the US, UK, France, and to a lesser extent, some of the others.
The historical reason is because of the European empires. China and Russia had land empires. Europe had distant colonies at sea.
Through to the present, China and Russia cover large areas of the Eurasian continent, but they have almost no presence outside those areas especially military.
Several NATO countries have colonies and outposts throughout the world, and they have needed strong expeditionary capabilities by sea to connect them together.
"The US has overseas bases for a different reason. It had few overseas colonies at the start of the 20th century but then rapidly expanded to the point where it has 750 in total. Many of these are in former European colonies whose governments gave the US permission to set up bases. So, although these countries were not directly colonized by the US, the reason for the US presence is similar, that they belonged to former European colonies connected together by sea.
Anyway so whatever the historical reason that's the world we are in.
I go into it in some detail in my blog post 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.
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
It also produces a small amount of gamma radiation (penetrating light, like X rays but more energetic) and beta radiation (electrons) and a small number of neutrons (whch are what sustain the chain reaction in a bomb)
https://www.wise-uranium.org/rup.html
But for a normal chunk of even enriched uranium none of that is enough to matter.
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 - 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…
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:
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
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…
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.