nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
International Relations prof at U. Illinois. Editor of Arc Digital. Author “Drones and Terrorism.” Politics, national security, and occasional nerdery.
12,359 posts
59,338 followers
807 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
At no point do I argue that Iran's nuclear program was dormant or stagnant, and in the article I note that they've ramped up enrichment.
I did suggest I'm more inclined to believe Israeli military/intel over Netanyahu himself, and wanted to acknowledge his years-long record of similar warnings.
comment in response to
post
More detailed write up of Israel's attack on Iran here:
comment in response to
post
More detailed write up here:
comment in response to
post
Israel has had nuclear weapons since the late 1960s.
comment in response to
post
Right. Three possible options, and Trump ruined the best one.
comment in response to
post
I won't take full responsibility, but I apologize for my contributions.
comment in response to
post
Older than he was before, in fact.
comment in response to
post
Re: "full-scale," who knows.
But I would be very surprised if Iran takes a de-escalatory path in response. The attack is too big, too widespread. No state would let it slide.
comment in response to
post
Yup, that was my point. We're on the same page now.
comment in response to
post
No. Israel has never done this kind of strike, nor a similar one at this scale. Literally never.
comment in response to
post
Yup
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
I, and many others, said in 2018 that Trump letting Iran out of nuclear restrictions in exchange for nothing would end in war or a nuclear Iran. And here we are.
comment in response to
post
The last thing someone who believes in convenient fictions wants is to be confronted with factual reality.
comment in response to
post
Yeah...
That skepticism was right the first dozen or so times, over the course of years. But not this time.
comment in response to
post
What an odd alternative universe these folks inhabit.
There were two ceasefires, both brokered by the Biden admin, Egypt, and Qatar. The second one lasted a few months into the current Trump administration, collapsing shortly after Trump called for US ownership of Gaza and ethnic cleansing there.
comment in response to
post
Indeed.
comment in response to
post
No. No we are not.
Here's me on that back-and-forth: www.arcdigital.media/p/is-the-mid...
comment in response to
post
Who wrote "unprovoked" here?
www.arcdigital.media/p/is-the-mid...
comment in response to
post
Seriously.
Through this probably would've pulled me back in regardless.
comment in response to
post
First, what's the evidence of "days away from finalizing 8 nukes"?
Second, that's not a response. Responses are reactions to something someone does to you.
comment in response to
post
With state use of force, there's always a possibility of overreach without a good plan.
That said, I'd guess joint, related goals of weakening Iran and potentially dragging the US into a regime change war.
comment in response to
post
Yes, that was always ridiculous, but now proven incontrovertibly so.
comment in response to
post
<sigh>
comment in response to
post
Color me skeptical on the claim that Iran was planning to produce multiple bombs in a few days. As far as I know, that's beyond their capacity, even if they wanted to.
But on closing airports and expecting retaliation, yes.
comment in response to
post
It's not like Osirak.
Iraq's nuclear program was considerably less advanced, and less dispersed. Plus Iraq's ability to cause damage via direct attacks and proxies was decently lower than Iran's is today, even after Israeli operations weakened Hezbollah and other Iranian allies.
comment in response to
post
Seriously.
Though this probably would have dragged me out of break regardless.
comment in response to
post
A violent assault on Congress that put all of them in personal danger only sort of motivated them—and only some of them at that—so I share your skepticism. Unfortunately.
comment in response to
post
Regarding legal, at least, the answer is usually clearer.
For example, with the US invasion of Iraq, it was the Authorization for the Use of Force Iraq, passed by solid majorities in both houses of Congress.
comment in response to
post
Mass oppression needs a lot of personnel, and they don’t have the numbers.
comment in response to
post
I don’t think I’d classify rioting as opposition.
But either way, the argument that an authoritarian regime would greatly prefer acquiescence over opposition does not imply that literally anything anyone does in opposition is always beneficial.
My point is more general than specific.
comment in response to
post
Nice to be back.
Well, maybe not pleasant per se. But still.
If you're interested, I wrote about some things I missed while on break here:
comment in response to
post
I lived through it and remember it, and I strongly disagree.
If anything, that misguided equivalence makes it harder to deal with the problem now. After all, if this is just what's happened before, then we don't need anything different to deal with it.
comment in response to
post
Right, some people are getting it backwards.
It's an escalation from what the regime has been doing to a variety of less powerful people; an assertion that they're increasingly confident in their abuses. It's not merely a warning of what they might do to an average person.
comment in response to
post
Yes, elected officials have a lot more power than average citizens, and yes, many of them deserve criticism. I've lobbed quite a bit myself.
That said, there's a difference between (1) frustration, even some despair, with elected officials, and (2) doomerist defeatism.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Very much so.
"Nothing is true and everything is possible."
Can't convince most people that blatantly false things are true, but can flood the zone, confuse, and frustrate them to the point many regular people check out.