[TrumpCard]

There are reports today that Israel is preparing for a more prolonged conflict than it originally envisioned.  I take this type of report with a grain of salt, but, if true, it supports the idea BigV advanced regarding mission creep.  

Also, Iraq lodged a complaint today about Israeli planes using its airspace.  Depending on the direction that dispute takes, Israel could need an alternative arrangement to continue the bombing campaign at the current pace, or even close to the current pace.  Another possible place where mission creep could occur.  

In sum, I continue to feel uneasy about the current situation, but I also don't know that there was a better option.  I continue to feel humility in assessing whether Israel is doing the right thing and I continue to feel apprehension about the potential for a catastrophic attack by Iran or its proxies, regardless of which path Israel follows.

[TrumpCard]

There are reports today that Israel is preparing for a more prolonged conflict than it originally envisioned.  I take this type of report with a grain of salt, but, if true, it supports the idea BigV advanced regarding mission creep.  

Also, Iraq lodged a complaint today about Israeli planes using its airspace.  Depending on the direction that dispute takes, Israel could need an alternative arrangement to continue the bombing campaign at the current pace, or even close to the current pace.  Another possible place where mission creep could occur.  

In sum, I continue to feel uneasy about the current situation, but I also don't know that there was a better option.  I continue to feel humility in assessing whether Israel is doing the right thing and I continue to feel apprehension about the potential for a catastrophic attack by Iran or its proxies, regardless of which path Israel follows.

[Goose]

There are reports today that Israel is preparing for a more prolonged conflict than it originally envisioned.  I take this type of report with a grain of salt, but, if true, it supports the idea BigV advanced regarding mission creep.

IMO this "more prolonged" conflict is due to two things. First, Iran is still able to fire missiles into Israel. As long as this is undeniably true, Israel politically can't claim victory. Second, Israel still can't claim they have removed Iran's ability to enrich Uranium. Obviously there is lots of damage to that ability, but clearly lots of it remains and (more importantly) Iran hasn't renounced its intention to maintain that capability. IMO Israel expected that by now the US would have destroyed the remaining know capabilities. We have not done that, which is a big "oops" for Israel.

Also, Iraq lodged a complaint today about Israeli planes using its airspace.  Depending on the direction that dispute takes, Israel could need an alternative arrangement to continue the bombing campaign at the current pace, or even close to the current pace.  Another possible place where mission creep could occur.

IMO Iraq is doing this pro forma. They have no capability to prevent Israel from using their airspace. It however doesn't make sense to not acknowledge you have noticed and consider it illegal. OTOH if either Syria or Iraq figured out a way to actually deny Israel the ability to use their airspace, it is game over for Israel. Israel is attacking Iran directly only because it has a manageable way to get there. Israel can't come anywhere close to this tempo going the "long way around". Simply not an option.   

In sum, I continue to feel uneasy about the current situation, but I also don't know that there was a better option.  I continue to feel humility in assessing whether Israel is doing the right thing and I continue to feel apprehension about the potential for a catastrophic attack by Iran or its proxies, regardless of which path Israel follows.

I think we all feel uneasy. There are probably some that are "sure" what the way ahead should be, but IMO they just haven't though about the problem enough. I do feel even more uneasy when I hear that our country's decision will be based on "instinct". I would hope a well-reasoned logical analysis justifying whatever actions the US does or does not take would be presented. That doesn't mean the decision is "correct", because the information available is always imperfect and how much weight is ascribed to any given element is most often subjective. That said, it shouldn't be just "gut feel".

[Goose]

There are reports today that Israel is preparing for a more prolonged conflict than it originally envisioned.  I take this type of report with a grain of salt, but, if true, it supports the idea BigV advanced regarding mission creep.

IMO this "more prolonged" conflict is due to two things. First, Iran is still able to fire missiles into Israel. As long as this is undeniably true, Israel politically can't claim victory. Second, Israel still can't claim they have removed Iran's ability to enrich Uranium. Obviously there is lots of damage to that ability, but clearly lots of it remains and (more importantly) Iran hasn't renounced its intention to maintain that capability. IMO Israel expected that by now the US would have destroyed the remaining know capabilities. We have not done that, which is a big "oops" for Israel.

Also, Iraq lodged a complaint today about Israeli planes using its airspace.  Depending on the direction that dispute takes, Israel could need an alternative arrangement to continue the bombing campaign at the current pace, or even close to the current pace.  Another possible place where mission creep could occur.

IMO Iraq is doing this pro forma. They have no capability to prevent Israel from using their airspace. It however doesn't make sense to not acknowledge you have noticed and consider it illegal. OTOH if either Syria or Iraq figured out a way to actually deny Israel the ability to use their airspace, it is game over for Israel. Israel is attacking Iran directly only because it has a manageable way to get there. Israel can't come anywhere close to this tempo going the "long way around". Simply not an option.   

In sum, I continue to feel uneasy about the current situation, but I also don't know that there was a better option.  I continue to feel humility in assessing whether Israel is doing the right thing and I continue to feel apprehension about the potential for a catastrophic attack by Iran or its proxies, regardless of which path Israel follows.

I think we all feel uneasy. There are probably some that are "sure" what the way ahead should be, but IMO they just haven't though about the problem enough. I do feel even more uneasy when I hear that our country's decision will be based on "instinct". I would hope a well-reasoned logical analysis justifying whatever actions the US does or does not take would be presented. That doesn't mean the decision is "correct", because the information available is always imperfect and how much weight is ascribed to any given element is most often subjective. That said, it shouldn't be just "gut feel".

[GK3]

There are reports today that Israel is preparing for a more prolonged conflict than it originally envisioned.  I take this type of report with a grain of salt, but, if true, it supports the idea BigV advanced regarding mission creep.

IMO this "more prolonged" conflict is due to two things. First, Iran is still able to fire missiles into Israel. As long as this is undeniably true, Israel politically can't claim victory. Second, Israel still can't claim they have removed Iran's ability to enrich Uranium. Obviously there is lots of damage to that ability, but clearly lots of it remains and (more importantly) Iran hasn't renounced its intention to maintain that capability. IMO Israel expected that by now the US would have destroyed the remaining know capabilities. We have not done that, which is a big "oops" for Israel.

Also, Iraq lodged a complaint today about Israeli planes using its airspace.  Depending on the direction that dispute takes, Israel could need an alternative arrangement to continue the bombing campaign at the current pace, or even close to the current pace.  Another possible place where mission creep could occur.

IMO Iraq is doing this pro forma. They have no capability to prevent Israel from using their airspace. It however doesn't make sense to not acknowledge you have noticed and consider it illegal. OTOH if either Syria or Iraq figured out a way to actually deny Israel the ability to use their airspace, it is game over for Israel. Israel is attacking Iran directly only because it has a manageable way to get there. Israel can't come anywhere close to this tempo going the "long way around". Simply not an option.   

In sum, I continue to feel uneasy about the current situation, but I also don't know that there was a better option.  I continue to feel humility in assessing whether Israel is doing the right thing and I continue to feel apprehension about the potential for a catastrophic attack by Iran or its proxies, regardless of which path Israel follows.

I think we all feel uneasy. There are probably some that are "sure" what the way ahead should be, but IMO they just haven't though about the problem enough. I do feel even more uneasy when I hear that our country's decision will be based on "instinct". I would hope a well-reasoned logical analysis justifying whatever actions the US does or does not take would be presented. That doesn't mean the decision is "correct", because the information available is always imperfect and how much weight is ascribed to any given element is most often subjective. That said, it shouldn't be just "gut feel".

As I see it, the only way Israel "wins" is to have Iran either surrender or allow Israeli or Western inspection of all of its nuclear facilities to make sure no further weapons development is on going. I also see the chance of that as slim and none unless we agree to get involved AND are willing to put boots on the ground once again in the Middle East.  I seriously doubt we will do this either.  As you say Israel probably figured we would do the dirty work for them, seems unlikely. 
Questions:
How fast can Israel produce additional missiles
and bombs?  In the end are they dependent upon us to provide what they need?  If yes, will we?
Is Israel willing to use a nuclear weapon or two force surrender by Iran? seems extremely unlikely. 

Historically, winning a war involves the losing side to sitting down with the winners, signing a peace treaty and agreeing to the terms demanded by the victor.  We have enough experience in the last 30 years that should convince us that getting involved in another ground war in the Middle East would be a big mistake. If we elect not to get seriously involved, where does it leave Israel?

One can always wonder what would have happened if Eisenhower had not directed the CIA to overthrow the newly elected democratic government of Iran, this to placate     Churchill and BP. 

In the Ukraine Mess, the following article on the current economic situation makes one think about maybe Ukraine might actually hold out, but I have no way to assess the accuracy of the economic facts presented.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/rus...0inflation.

[GK3]

There are reports today that Israel is preparing for a more prolonged conflict than it originally envisioned.  I take this type of report with a grain of salt, but, if true, it supports the idea BigV advanced regarding mission creep.

IMO this "more prolonged" conflict is due to two things. First, Iran is still able to fire missiles into Israel. As long as this is undeniably true, Israel politically can't claim victory. Second, Israel still can't claim they have removed Iran's ability to enrich Uranium. Obviously there is lots of damage to that ability, but clearly lots of it remains and (more importantly) Iran hasn't renounced its intention to maintain that capability. IMO Israel expected that by now the US would have destroyed the remaining know capabilities. We have not done that, which is a big "oops" for Israel.

Also, Iraq lodged a complaint today about Israeli planes using its airspace.  Depending on the direction that dispute takes, Israel could need an alternative arrangement to continue the bombing campaign at the current pace, or even close to the current pace.  Another possible place where mission creep could occur.

IMO Iraq is doing this pro forma. They have no capability to prevent Israel from using their airspace. It however doesn't make sense to not acknowledge you have noticed and consider it illegal. OTOH if either Syria or Iraq figured out a way to actually deny Israel the ability to use their airspace, it is game over for Israel. Israel is attacking Iran directly only because it has a manageable way to get there. Israel can't come anywhere close to this tempo going the "long way around". Simply not an option.   

In sum, I continue to feel uneasy about the current situation, but I also don't know that there was a better option.  I continue to feel humility in assessing whether Israel is doing the right thing and I continue to feel apprehension about the potential for a catastrophic attack by Iran or its proxies, regardless of which path Israel follows.

I think we all feel uneasy. There are probably some that are "sure" what the way ahead should be, but IMO they just haven't though about the problem enough. I do feel even more uneasy when I hear that our country's decision will be based on "instinct". I would hope a well-reasoned logical analysis justifying whatever actions the US does or does not take would be presented. That doesn't mean the decision is "correct", because the information available is always imperfect and how much weight is ascribed to any given element is most often subjective. That said, it shouldn't be just "gut feel".

As I see it, the only way Israel "wins" is to have Iran either surrender or allow Israeli or Western inspection of all of its nuclear facilities to make sure no further weapons development is on going. I also see the chance of that as slim and none unless we agree to get involved AND are willing to put boots on the ground once again in the Middle East.  I seriously doubt we will do this either.  As you say Israel probably figured we would do the dirty work for them, seems unlikely. 
Questions:
How fast can Israel produce additional missiles
and bombs?  In the end are they dependent upon us to provide what they need?  If yes, will we?
Is Israel willing to use a nuclear weapon or two force surrender by Iran? seems extremely unlikely. 

Historically, winning a war involves the losing side to sitting down with the winners, signing a peace treaty and agreeing to the terms demanded by the victor.  We have enough experience in the last 30 years that should convince us that getting involved in another ground war in the Middle East would be a big mistake. If we elect not to get seriously involved, where does it leave Israel?

One can always wonder what would have happened if Eisenhower had not directed the CIA to overthrow the newly elected democratic government of Iran, this to placate     Churchill and BP. 

In the Ukraine Mess, the following article on the current economic situation makes one think about maybe Ukraine might actually hold out, but I have no way to assess the accuracy of the economic facts presented.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/rus...0inflation.

[Goose]

As I see it, the only way Israel "wins" is to have Iran either surrender or allow Israeli or Western inspection of all of its nuclear facilities to make sure no further weapons development is on going. I also see the chance of that as slim and none unless we agree to get involved AND are willing to put boots on the ground once again in the Middle East.  I seriously doubt we will do this either.  As you say Israel probably figured we would do the dirty work for them, seems unlikely.

I am absolutely certain Israel has no intention if fighting a "land war" in Iran. They just don't have the mass to even attempt it. It is also too far away. Israel hasn't got the sealift to get their troops there. Syria and Iraq can't impede Israel in the air but they can on the ground. Israel may establish one or more temporary airheads but they can't establish a persistent presence. Israel knows this. The US administration will not put boots on the ground. It is too politically unpopular among many other very good reasons.
 
The country of Iran will not just disappear. There are a plethora of articles on the net discussing what a successor to the present government might look like. IMO Israel intends to destroy Iran's ballistic missile capability. That is Israel's proximate goal. They also intend to destroy whatever air defense Iran has remaining. Israel will also destroy all the nuclear facilities that it can. These war aims are reasonably within their grasp. Israel has no illusions that there will be a "peace conference" or "peace treaty" signed to "end the war". Israel is hoping for a regime change occurring fairly soon, but they are not counting on it. They would like a government in Iran that will renounce any enrichment capability, will stop aiding the previous Iranian proxy forces, and will not build ballistic missiles to use against Israel. A "formal" agreement, while nice to have, isn't necessary. Such a public "surrender" may not happen, but a de facto one will do.
 
Failing any such agreement, Israel will accept an Iran that has no air defenses so that Israel can at any time kinetically "veto" Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile activities. Israel can also inflict economic devastation when "necessary". That is Israel's plan B. The major problem problem with this plan is that Israel needs the US to destroy the underground nuclear facilities that Israel cannot. IMO they expected we would have done that by now. We haven't, and there is no assurance that we will. Even if we do decide to do it, it is unclear when that would be. The second problem is that Iran's ballistic missile forces have proved more resilient than Israel apparently planned. Given how well everything else has gone, this is undoubtedly a surprise. Israel may or may not be running low on Arrow missiles. IMO Israel may have read its own product brochures and believed their missiles were 100% effective. They aren't. No anti-missile system is. IMO this is a "manageable" problem for Israel. The first problem is not.

Questions:
How fast can Israel produce additional missiles

Not fast enough to matter much. Same with Iranian ballistic missiles. It is a "come as you are" war.

and bombs?  In the end are they dependent upon us to provide what they need?  If yes, will we?

Israel needs bombs from the US. It also needs all kinds of spare parts. We will provide them if history is any guide. There is enough of an Israel lobby in the US that we will not withhold this kind of aid as long as there is any doubt that Israel is going to "win". IMO this administration will not even refuse such supplies to force and end to a successful war.

Is Israel willing to use a nuclear weapon or two force surrender by Iran? seems extremely unlikely.

IMO that is a zero probability event.

Historically, winning a war involves the losing side to sitting down with the winners, signing a peace treaty and agreeing to the terms demanded by the victor.  We have enough experience in the last 30 years that should convince us that getting involved in another ground war in the Middle East would be a big mistake. If we elect not to get seriously involved, where does it leave Israel?

We are already "seriously involved" in that we are shooting down Iranian missiles on Israel's behalf. Israel probably needs us to continue doing that. Either a slight miscalculation on Israel's part or the administration had already committed to do that. Not a "good look" but manageable. Israel needs US ordinance resupply for their air force. Most of all, Israel needs us to attack the deeply buried Iranian nuclear sites. That is all they need/want. The last one is IMO key. Will we do it? Should we do it? Both are tough questions.
 
The US has no reason to do any more than the above. If we decide to start bombing Iran just to "help out" with Israel's other goals then we are certifiably crazy. Israel doesn't need that "help".

[Goose]

As I see it, the only way Israel "wins" is to have Iran either surrender or allow Israeli or Western inspection of all of its nuclear facilities to make sure no further weapons development is on going. I also see the chance of that as slim and none unless we agree to get involved AND are willing to put boots on the ground once again in the Middle East.  I seriously doubt we will do this either.  As you say Israel probably figured we would do the dirty work for them, seems unlikely.

I am absolutely certain Israel has no intention if fighting a "land war" in Iran. They just don't have the mass to even attempt it. It is also too far away. Israel hasn't got the sealift to get their troops there. Syria and Iraq can't impede Israel in the air but they can on the ground. Israel may establish one or more temporary airheads but they can't establish a persistent presence. Israel knows this. The US administration will not put boots on the ground. It is too politically unpopular among many other very good reasons.
 
The country of Iran will not just disappear. There are a plethora of articles on the net discussing what a successor to the present government might look like. IMO Israel intends to destroy Iran's ballistic missile capability. That is Israel's proximate goal. They also intend to destroy whatever air defense Iran has remaining. Israel will also destroy all the nuclear facilities that it can. These war aims are reasonably within their grasp. Israel has no illusions that there will be a "peace conference" or "peace treaty" signed to "end the war". Israel is hoping for a regime change occurring fairly soon, but they are not counting on it. They would like a government in Iran that will renounce any enrichment capability, will stop aiding the previous Iranian proxy forces, and will not build ballistic missiles to use against Israel. A "formal" agreement, while nice to have, isn't necessary. Such a public "surrender" may not happen, but a de facto one will do.
 
Failing any such agreement, Israel will accept an Iran that has no air defenses so that Israel can at any time kinetically "veto" Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile activities. Israel can also inflict economic devastation when "necessary". That is Israel's plan B. The major problem problem with this plan is that Israel needs the US to destroy the underground nuclear facilities that Israel cannot. IMO they expected we would have done that by now. We haven't, and there is no assurance that we will. Even if we do decide to do it, it is unclear when that would be. The second problem is that Iran's ballistic missile forces have proved more resilient than Israel apparently planned. Given how well everything else has gone, this is undoubtedly a surprise. Israel may or may not be running low on Arrow missiles. IMO Israel may have read its own product brochures and believed their missiles were 100% effective. They aren't. No anti-missile system is. IMO this is a "manageable" problem for Israel. The first problem is not.

Questions:
How fast can Israel produce additional missiles

Not fast enough to matter much. Same with Iranian ballistic missiles. It is a "come as you are" war.

and bombs?  In the end are they dependent upon us to provide what they need?  If yes, will we?

Israel needs bombs from the US. It also needs all kinds of spare parts. We will provide them if history is any guide. There is enough of an Israel lobby in the US that we will not withhold this kind of aid as long as there is any doubt that Israel is going to "win". IMO this administration will not even refuse such supplies to force and end to a successful war.

Is Israel willing to use a nuclear weapon or two force surrender by Iran? seems extremely unlikely.

IMO that is a zero probability event.

Historically, winning a war involves the losing side to sitting down with the winners, signing a peace treaty and agreeing to the terms demanded by the victor.  We have enough experience in the last 30 years that should convince us that getting involved in another ground war in the Middle East would be a big mistake. If we elect not to get seriously involved, where does it leave Israel?

We are already "seriously involved" in that we are shooting down Iranian missiles on Israel's behalf. Israel probably needs us to continue doing that. Either a slight miscalculation on Israel's part or the administration had already committed to do that. Not a "good look" but manageable. Israel needs US ordinance resupply for their air force. Most of all, Israel needs us to attack the deeply buried Iranian nuclear sites. That is all they need/want. The last one is IMO key. Will we do it? Should we do it? Both are tough questions.
 
The US has no reason to do any more than the above. If we decide to start bombing Iran just to "help out" with Israel's other goals then we are certifiably crazy. Israel doesn't need that "help".

[gocard14]

Reports of six takeoffs of B2s from Missouri, along with multiple KC 135s. Could be positioning them closer like at Guam, but the amount of refueling activity  (near west coast and over Hawaii) suggests they are heavily loaded. 

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-858468

The fact that this is out in the public suggests it may be a final ultimatum. Meet our terms or else they carry out a strike.

[gocard14]

Reports of six takeoffs of B2s from Missouri, along with multiple KC 135s. Could be positioning them closer like at Guam, but the amount of refueling activity  (near west coast and over Hawaii) suggests they are heavily loaded. 

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-858468

The fact that this is out in the public suggests it may be a final ultimatum. Meet our terms or else they carry out a strike.

[GK3]

As I see it, the only way Israel "wins" is to have Iran either surrender or allow Israeli or Western inspection of all of its nuclear facilities to make sure no further weapons development is on going. I also see the chance of that as slim and none unless we agree to get involved AND are willing to put boots on the ground once again in the Middle East.  I seriously doubt we will do this either.  As you say Israel probably figured we would do the dirty work for them, seems unlikely.

I am absolutely certain Israel has no intention if fighting a "land war" in Iran. They just don't have the mass to even attempt it. It is also too far away. Israel hasn't got the sealift to get their troops there. Syria and Iraq can't impede Israel in the air but they can on the ground. Israel may establish one or more temporary airheads but they can't establish a persistent presence. Israel knows this. The US administration will not put boots on the ground. It is too politically unpopular among many other very good reasons.
 
The country of Iran will not just disappear. There are a plethora of articles on the net discussing what a successor to the present government might look like. IMO Israel intends to destroy Iran's ballistic missile capability. That is Israel's proximate goal. They also intend to destroy whatever air defense Iran has remaining. Israel will also destroy all the nuclear facilities that it can. These war aims are reasonably within their grasp. Israel has no illusions that there will be a "peace conference" or "peace treaty" signed to "end the war". Israel is hoping for a regime change occurring fairly soon, but they are not counting on it. They would like a government in Iran that will renounce any enrichment capability, will stop aiding the previous Iranian proxy forces, and will not build ballistic missiles to use against Israel. A "formal" agreement, while nice to have, isn't necessary. Such a public "surrender" may not happen, but a de facto one will do.
 
Failing any such agreement, Israel will accept an Iran that has no air defenses so that Israel can at any time kinetically "veto" Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile activities. Israel can also inflict economic devastation when "necessary". That is Israel's plan B. The major problem problem with this plan is that Israel needs the US to destroy the underground nuclear facilities that Israel cannot. IMO they expected we would have done that by now. We haven't, and there is no assurance that we will. Even if we do decide to do it, it is unclear when that would be. The second problem is that Iran's ballistic missile forces have proved more resilient than Israel apparently planned. Given how well everything else has gone, this is undoubtedly a surprise. Israel may or may not be running low on Arrow missiles. IMO Israel may have read its own product brochures and believed their missiles were 100% effective. They aren't. No anti-missile system is. IMO this is a "manageable" problem for Israel. The first problem is not.

Questions:
How fast can Israel produce additional missiles

Not fast enough to matter much. Same with Iranian ballistic missiles. It is a "come as you are" war.

and bombs?  In the end are they dependent upon us to provide what they need?  If yes, will we?

Israel needs bombs from the US. It also needs all kinds of spare parts. We will provide them if history is any guide. There is enough of an Israel lobby in the US that we will not withhold this kind of aid as long as there is any doubt that Israel is going to "win". IMO this administration will not even refuse such supplies to force and end to a successful war.

Is Israel willing to use a nuclear weapon or two force surrender by Iran? seems extremely unlikely.

IMO that is a zero probability event.

Historically, winning a war involves the losing side to sitting down with the winners, signing a peace treaty and agreeing to the terms demanded by the victor.  We have enough experience in the last 30 years that should convince us that getting involved in another ground war in the Middle East would be a big mistake. If we elect not to get seriously involved, where does it leave Israel?

We are already "seriously involved" in that we are shooting down Iranian missiles on Israel's behalf. Israel probably needs us to continue doing that. Either a slight miscalculation on Israel's part or the administration had already committed to do that. Not a "good look" but manageable. Israel needs US ordinance resupply for their air force. Most of all, Israel needs us to attack the deeply buried Iranian nuclear sites. That is all they need/want. The last one is IMO key. Will we do it? Should we do it? Both are tough questions.
 
The US has no reason to do any more than the above. If we decide to start bombing Iran just to "help out" with Israel's other goals then we are certifiably crazy. Israel doesn't need that "help".

I think we are crazy if we do anything more than what we are currently doing.  Israel's inability to "invade" Iran is I would say, pretty obvious and my comments were made with that in mind. Iran now says it will "talk" if the Israeli attacks stop.  Seems like a situation where the side that runs out of weapons and will power loses, sort of.  Regime change is Israel's most likely path to a victory of sorts.  This Foreign Affairs article discusses it: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/righ...hange-iran
At the same time I have read a number of other articles whose writers propose that if the Ayatollah goes, the Iranian Army and Security Services will remain the dominant power and a new leader might well be worse than the one that left.  Since it is effectively impossible for Israel to invade and force a regime change and almost as unlikely that we will do it for them, what is the most likely endgame?  How long can the USA continue to provide munitions and anti missile support?  Every missile we fire or give to Israel draws down our strategic stock and makes us less able to act elsewhere if needed.  As we have proven time and time again, getting involved in the Middle East is easy, getting out is hard.
Perhaps mutual exhaustion will lead to a cease fire.

[GK3]

As I see it, the only way Israel "wins" is to have Iran either surrender or allow Israeli or Western inspection of all of its nuclear facilities to make sure no further weapons development is on going. I also see the chance of that as slim and none unless we agree to get involved AND are willing to put boots on the ground once again in the Middle East.  I seriously doubt we will do this either.  As you say Israel probably figured we would do the dirty work for them, seems unlikely.

I am absolutely certain Israel has no intention if fighting a "land war" in Iran. They just don't have the mass to even attempt it. It is also too far away. Israel hasn't got the sealift to get their troops there. Syria and Iraq can't impede Israel in the air but they can on the ground. Israel may establish one or more temporary airheads but they can't establish a persistent presence. Israel knows this. The US administration will not put boots on the ground. It is too politically unpopular among many other very good reasons.
 
The country of Iran will not just disappear. There are a plethora of articles on the net discussing what a successor to the present government might look like. IMO Israel intends to destroy Iran's ballistic missile capability. That is Israel's proximate goal. They also intend to destroy whatever air defense Iran has remaining. Israel will also destroy all the nuclear facilities that it can. These war aims are reasonably within their grasp. Israel has no illusions that there will be a "peace conference" or "peace treaty" signed to "end the war". Israel is hoping for a regime change occurring fairly soon, but they are not counting on it. They would like a government in Iran that will renounce any enrichment capability, will stop aiding the previous Iranian proxy forces, and will not build ballistic missiles to use against Israel. A "formal" agreement, while nice to have, isn't necessary. Such a public "surrender" may not happen, but a de facto one will do.
 
Failing any such agreement, Israel will accept an Iran that has no air defenses so that Israel can at any time kinetically "veto" Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile activities. Israel can also inflict economic devastation when "necessary". That is Israel's plan B. The major problem problem with this plan is that Israel needs the US to destroy the underground nuclear facilities that Israel cannot. IMO they expected we would have done that by now. We haven't, and there is no assurance that we will. Even if we do decide to do it, it is unclear when that would be. The second problem is that Iran's ballistic missile forces have proved more resilient than Israel apparently planned. Given how well everything else has gone, this is undoubtedly a surprise. Israel may or may not be running low on Arrow missiles. IMO Israel may have read its own product brochures and believed their missiles were 100% effective. They aren't. No anti-missile system is. IMO this is a "manageable" problem for Israel. The first problem is not.

Questions:
How fast can Israel produce additional missiles

Not fast enough to matter much. Same with Iranian ballistic missiles. It is a "come as you are" war.

and bombs?  In the end are they dependent upon us to provide what they need?  If yes, will we?

Israel needs bombs from the US. It also needs all kinds of spare parts. We will provide them if history is any guide. There is enough of an Israel lobby in the US that we will not withhold this kind of aid as long as there is any doubt that Israel is going to "win". IMO this administration will not even refuse such supplies to force and end to a successful war.

Is Israel willing to use a nuclear weapon or two force surrender by Iran? seems extremely unlikely.

IMO that is a zero probability event.

Historically, winning a war involves the losing side to sitting down with the winners, signing a peace treaty and agreeing to the terms demanded by the victor.  We have enough experience in the last 30 years that should convince us that getting involved in another ground war in the Middle East would be a big mistake. If we elect not to get seriously involved, where does it leave Israel?

We are already "seriously involved" in that we are shooting down Iranian missiles on Israel's behalf. Israel probably needs us to continue doing that. Either a slight miscalculation on Israel's part or the administration had already committed to do that. Not a "good look" but manageable. Israel needs US ordinance resupply for their air force. Most of all, Israel needs us to attack the deeply buried Iranian nuclear sites. That is all they need/want. The last one is IMO key. Will we do it? Should we do it? Both are tough questions.
 
The US has no reason to do any more than the above. If we decide to start bombing Iran just to "help out" with Israel's other goals then we are certifiably crazy. Israel doesn't need that "help".

I think we are crazy if we do anything more than what we are currently doing.  Israel's inability to "invade" Iran is I would say, pretty obvious and my comments were made with that in mind. Iran now says it will "talk" if the Israeli attacks stop.  Seems like a situation where the side that runs out of weapons and will power loses, sort of.  Regime change is Israel's most likely path to a victory of sorts.  This Foreign Affairs article discusses it: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/righ...hange-iran
At the same time I have read a number of other articles whose writers propose that if the Ayatollah goes, the Iranian Army and Security Services will remain the dominant power and a new leader might well be worse than the one that left.  Since it is effectively impossible for Israel to invade and force a regime change and almost as unlikely that we will do it for them, what is the most likely endgame?  How long can the USA continue to provide munitions and anti missile support?  Every missile we fire or give to Israel draws down our strategic stock and makes us less able to act elsewhere if needed.  As we have proven time and time again, getting involved in the Middle East is easy, getting out is hard.
Perhaps mutual exhaustion will lead to a cease fire.

[Goose]

I think we are crazy if we do anything more than what we are currently doing.

To be absolutely clear, you do not believe the US should execute one or more B-2 strikes on Fordow and possibly other newly identified deeply buried nuclear weapons facilities? I would prefer we do not, but not doing so has consequences. I would also much prefer we weren't in this position.
 
IMO when Israel said they were going to attack we should have made it crystal clear to them what we would do to help them and also what we would NOT do to help them. They could then have made an informed decision. Has we wished, we could have told them we wouldn't help at all, including no ordnance resupply. Under those conditions, Israel couldn't have gone ahead. I am not advocating this position, but that option had to be on the table. Similarly, if we are not going to execute the "bunker busting" activities, Israel should have fully understood that. If we are, we should have already done so. Delay helps nobody in this regard, but the associated uncertainty can easily result in bad decisions by both Iran and Israel.

 Israel's inability to "invade" Iran is I would say, pretty obvious and my comments were made with that in mind. Iran now says it will "talk" if the Israeli attacks stop.  Seems like a situation where the side that runs out of weapons and will power loses, sort of.  Regime change is Israel's most likely path to a victory of sorts.  This Foreign Affairs article discusses it: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/righ...hange-iran
At the same time I have read a number of other articles whose writers propose that if the Ayatollah goes, the Iranian Army and Security Services will remain the dominant power and a new leader might well be worse than the one that left.  Since it is effectively impossible for Israel to invade and force a regime change and almost as unlikely that we will do it for them, what is the most likely endgame?  How long can the USA continue to provide munitions and anti missile support? Every missile we fire or give to Israel draws down our strategic stock and makes us less able to act elsewhere if needed.

IMO Israel's has two versions of the end game. In the worst case alternative Iran has no nuclear weapons program, no ballistic missile capability, and no effective air defense. Israel can then kill whichever leaders it doesn't like until it gets one it does. Israel can also use air power to maintain that status quo. Israel believes it can accomplish all of this without any additional US help except destroying the underground sites. If we won't do that, Israel will have to attempt it on their own. Which do we prefer?
 
The US can keep supplying dumb bombs and aircraft spare parts essentially indefinitely. Israel clearly believes it can destroy and/or absorb all of Iran's current ballistic missile stocks within a few weeks. Given what we allegedly "know", that seems possible. Therefore our participation in anti-missile activities would terminate fairly quickly. Israel will/has also bombed all the supply chain/manufacturing sites for Iranian ballistic missiles. That would cause Iran to run out of weapons first. Unfortunately for Israel that doesn't necessarily mean they will run out of will.

As we have proven time and time again, getting involved in the Middle East is easy, getting out is hard.

I would modify that a bit. We have demonstrated time and time again in the Middle East that military force often cannot accomplish our war aims. We have then persisted in attempting to use military force (or at least military presence) to accomplish those aims while fully aware it could not. No administration that has started such a military operation has been willing to admit that "successful" military action wasn't going to accomplish what the US desired. In addition those administrations had no idea how to proceed in response to that realization (except for the first Bush administration). Mechanically getting a military force out of the Middle East is fairly easy. Deciding to do it in a timely manner has been next to impossible. Even when we have successfully withdrawn, we have sometimes returned because the consequences of withdrawal were "unacceptable".

Perhaps mutual exhaustion will lead to a cease fire.

Possible. It may not be a "negotiated" cease fire and hostilities may persist. However exhaustion may lower the level of action to almost non-existent. One way that could happen is a defiant Iran with no ballistic missiles facing an Israel that has no more high-value bomb targets. Both sides would be asking "what do we do now?". One might hope at that point reason might prevail, but it is the Middle East so that is unlikely.

[Goose]

I think we are crazy if we do anything more than what we are currently doing.

To be absolutely clear, you do not believe the US should execute one or more B-2 strikes on Fordow and possibly other newly identified deeply buried nuclear weapons facilities? I would prefer we do not, but not doing so has consequences. I would also much prefer we weren't in this position.
 
IMO when Israel said they were going to attack we should have made it crystal clear to them what we would do to help them and also what we would NOT do to help them. They could then have made an informed decision. Has we wished, we could have told them we wouldn't help at all, including no ordnance resupply. Under those conditions, Israel couldn't have gone ahead. I am not advocating this position, but that option had to be on the table. Similarly, if we are not going to execute the "bunker busting" activities, Israel should have fully understood that. If we are, we should have already done so. Delay helps nobody in this regard, but the associated uncertainty can easily result in bad decisions by both Iran and Israel.

 Israel's inability to "invade" Iran is I would say, pretty obvious and my comments were made with that in mind. Iran now says it will "talk" if the Israeli attacks stop.  Seems like a situation where the side that runs out of weapons and will power loses, sort of.  Regime change is Israel's most likely path to a victory of sorts.  This Foreign Affairs article discusses it: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/righ...hange-iran
At the same time I have read a number of other articles whose writers propose that if the Ayatollah goes, the Iranian Army and Security Services will remain the dominant power and a new leader might well be worse than the one that left.  Since it is effectively impossible for Israel to invade and force a regime change and almost as unlikely that we will do it for them, what is the most likely endgame?  How long can the USA continue to provide munitions and anti missile support? Every missile we fire or give to Israel draws down our strategic stock and makes us less able to act elsewhere if needed.

IMO Israel's has two versions of the end game. In the worst case alternative Iran has no nuclear weapons program, no ballistic missile capability, and no effective air defense. Israel can then kill whichever leaders it doesn't like until it gets one it does. Israel can also use air power to maintain that status quo. Israel believes it can accomplish all of this without any additional US help except destroying the underground sites. If we won't do that, Israel will have to attempt it on their own. Which do we prefer?
 
The US can keep supplying dumb bombs and aircraft spare parts essentially indefinitely. Israel clearly believes it can destroy and/or absorb all of Iran's current ballistic missile stocks within a few weeks. Given what we allegedly "know", that seems possible. Therefore our participation in anti-missile activities would terminate fairly quickly. Israel will/has also bombed all the supply chain/manufacturing sites for Iranian ballistic missiles. That would cause Iran to run out of weapons first. Unfortunately for Israel that doesn't necessarily mean they will run out of will.

As we have proven time and time again, getting involved in the Middle East is easy, getting out is hard.

I would modify that a bit. We have demonstrated time and time again in the Middle East that military force often cannot accomplish our war aims. We have then persisted in attempting to use military force (or at least military presence) to accomplish those aims while fully aware it could not. No administration that has started such a military operation has been willing to admit that "successful" military action wasn't going to accomplish what the US desired. In addition those administrations had no idea how to proceed in response to that realization (except for the first Bush administration). Mechanically getting a military force out of the Middle East is fairly easy. Deciding to do it in a timely manner has been next to impossible. Even when we have successfully withdrawn, we have sometimes returned because the consequences of withdrawal were "unacceptable".

Perhaps mutual exhaustion will lead to a cease fire.

Possible. It may not be a "negotiated" cease fire and hostilities may persist. However exhaustion may lower the level of action to almost non-existent. One way that could happen is a defiant Iran with no ballistic missiles facing an Israel that has no more high-value bomb targets. Both sides would be asking "what do we do now?". One might hope at that point reason might prevail, but it is the Middle East so that is unlikely.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/b-2-bombers-m...04403.html

Posting this because it corrects an error I have been making.

The United States had B-2 bombers on Diego Garcia up until last month, when they were replaced with B-52 bombers.

I thought the B-2s were still there. That is the "right place" for them to be if Iran is the target. B-2s do not require even local air superiority to operate over Iran. B-52's absolutely do. Why one would deploy B-52s to Diego Garcia I have no idea. They can't be used over Iran until the Israelis have cleaned out a corridor from the IO. They haven't done that yet.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/b-2-bombers-m...04403.html

Posting this because it corrects an error I have been making.

The United States had B-2 bombers on Diego Garcia up until last month, when they were replaced with B-52 bombers.

I thought the B-2s were still there. That is the "right place" for them to be if Iran is the target. B-2s do not require even local air superiority to operate over Iran. B-52's absolutely do. Why one would deploy B-52s to Diego Garcia I have no idea. They can't be used over Iran until the Israelis have cleaned out a corridor from the IO. They haven't done that yet.

[Goose]

https://www.axios.com/2025/06/21/us-stri...rael-trump

Well, we have our answer about whether the US would attempt to destroy the underground sites. BDA to come.

[Goose]

https://www.axios.com/2025/06/21/us-stri...rael-trump

Well, we have our answer about whether the US would attempt to destroy the underground sites. BDA to come.

[gocard14]

https://www.axios.com/2025/06/21/us-stri...rael-trump

Well, we have our answer about whether the US would attempt to destroy the underground sites. BDA to come.

Here's hoping they achieved their desired objective, we can "declare victory", and avoid further involvement or escalation. Of course much of this will come down to Irans response, if they target US bases in the region, choose to act through proxies, or close the straight.

Also crazy world we live in where this is announced on truth social.

[gocard14]

https://www.axios.com/2025/06/21/us-stri...rael-trump

Well, we have our answer about whether the US would attempt to destroy the underground sites. BDA to come.

Here's hoping they achieved their desired objective, we can "declare victory", and avoid further involvement or escalation. Of course much of this will come down to Irans response, if they target US bases in the region, choose to act through proxies, or close the straight.

Also crazy world we live in where this is announced on truth social.

[dabigv13]

Silly me, I thought congress had to be involved when we go to war.

[dabigv13]

Silly me, I thought congress had to be involved when we go to war.

[gocard14]

My

Silly me, I thought congress had to be involved when we go to war.

Ideally yes. And while I'm no fan of POTUS I'm pretty sure every president since at least Clinton has bombed somewhere in the Middle East without congressional authorization.

[gocard14]

My

Silly me, I thought congress had to be involved when we go to war.

Ideally yes. And while I'm no fan of POTUS I'm pretty sure every president since at least Clinton has bombed somewhere in the Middle East without congressional authorization.

[M T]

Do you think Pakistan will continue to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize?

How do you do BDA on a facility 300 feet underground?

[M T]

Do you think Pakistan will continue to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize?

How do you do BDA on a facility 300 feet underground?

[Goose]

Here's hoping they achieved their desired objective, we can "declare victory", and avoid further involvement or escalation. Of course much of this will come down to Irans response, if they target US bases in the region, choose to act through proxies, or close the straight.

We now get to see what Iran's response will be. Ironically the US has bases that are much closer to Iran than Israel does. Iran can reach our bases in the Persian Gulf, our bases in Iraq and our base in Jordan with short range ballistic missiles. These missiles are of no use against Israel because they can't reach it. Iran has LOTS of these missiles. Iran can also target our bases in Iraq and Jordan with militias loyal to Iran that operate in Iraq. Normally Iran would unleash its proxies on Israel, but right now neither of "nearby" ones, Hamas and Hezbollah, are much of a threat. The Houthi are more of a threat to the Red Sea than they are to Israel, and the US is already engaged with them there.
 
Iran may attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz. If they do, the US is going to have to defeat them there. Hopefully that can be done via air power (naval air mostly and USAF where possible) and some limited surface naval power. Hopefully the Gulf States will allow us to continue to use our bases in the area to do that.

Ideally, Iran will refrain from striking the US bases and not threaten navigation in the Persian Gulf. This would allow a negotiated settlement. A de-facto settlement would also be "acceptable". I doubt we will be that lucky. If Iran "just" shoots missiles at our bases we have some options. We can initially be restrained in our response hoping for a negotiated solution. Allowing Iran to save face may be wise. Obviously that may not work, but IMO it is our best choice. If the US has to fight an air war in the Middle East against Iran it will be very messy at best.
 
IMO the war in Ukraine is probably more important to US (and "western") interests. We don't get to choose our battles though. Israel and Iran have tied our hands in some ways. I am concerned that Netanyahu has successfully outmaneuvered the administration into being an unwilling (and unwitting) ally. Some have said Israel is doing our "dirty work" for us. Going forward, we may be joining in that "dirty work". It won't be an infantry war, but it could still be very much a war.

[Goose]

Here's hoping they achieved their desired objective, we can "declare victory", and avoid further involvement or escalation. Of course much of this will come down to Irans response, if they target US bases in the region, choose to act through proxies, or close the straight.

We now get to see what Iran's response will be. Ironically the US has bases that are much closer to Iran than Israel does. Iran can reach our bases in the Persian Gulf, our bases in Iraq and our base in Jordan with short range ballistic missiles. These missiles are of no use against Israel because they can't reach it. Iran has LOTS of these missiles. Iran can also target our bases in Iraq and Jordan with militias loyal to Iran that operate in Iraq. Normally Iran would unleash its proxies on Israel, but right now neither of "nearby" ones, Hamas and Hezbollah, are much of a threat. The Houthi are more of a threat to the Red Sea than they are to Israel, and the US is already engaged with them there.
 
Iran may attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz. If they do, the US is going to have to defeat them there. Hopefully that can be done via air power (naval air mostly and USAF where possible) and some limited surface naval power. Hopefully the Gulf States will allow us to continue to use our bases in the area to do that.

Ideally, Iran will refrain from striking the US bases and not threaten navigation in the Persian Gulf. This would allow a negotiated settlement. A de-facto settlement would also be "acceptable". I doubt we will be that lucky. If Iran "just" shoots missiles at our bases we have some options. We can initially be restrained in our response hoping for a negotiated solution. Allowing Iran to save face may be wise. Obviously that may not work, but IMO it is our best choice. If the US has to fight an air war in the Middle East against Iran it will be very messy at best.
 
IMO the war in Ukraine is probably more important to US (and "western") interests. We don't get to choose our battles though. Israel and Iran have tied our hands in some ways. I am concerned that Netanyahu has successfully outmaneuvered the administration into being an unwilling (and unwitting) ally. Some have said Israel is doing our "dirty work" for us. Going forward, we may be joining in that "dirty work". It won't be an infantry war, but it could still be very much a war.

[martyup]

https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2szWVA...KbnsTRe63Y

[martyup]

https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2szWVA...KbnsTRe63Y

[BostonCard]

Thanks Marty. Now I won’t be able to get the song out of my head.

BC

[BostonCard]

Thanks Marty. Now I won’t be able to get the song out of my head.

BC

[martyup]

Thanks Marty. Now I won’t be able to get the song out of my head.

BC

Dr. Demento. Circa 1980.  It took 44 years to get it done.

[martyup]

Thanks Marty. Now I won’t be able to get the song out of my head.

BC

Dr. Demento. Circa 1980.  It took 44 years to get it done.

[JJJ]

Thanks Marty. Now I won’t be able to get the song out of my head.

BC

Dr. Demento. Circa 1980.  It took 44 years to get it done.

You made me literally lol. :)

[JJJ]

Thanks Marty. Now I won’t be able to get the song out of my head.

BC

Dr. Demento. Circa 1980.  It took 44 years to get it done.

You made me literally lol. :)

[Goose]

Do you think Pakistan will continue to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize?

How do you do BDA on a facility 300 feet underground?

It isn't easy. What you can do is look at where the craters are and how deep they are. Knowing a lot about the geology it MAY be possible to estimate how deep the MOP went before it exploded. That will tell you what you need to know, probably with significant error bars. Another possibility is localizing the depth of the explosion by processing the seismic waves generated by such a large event. I don't know if it is possible in this case, but lots of research went into doing similar things when nuclear tests were conducted underground. Israel may have helped by placing seismographs in appropriate locations. The delay differences at each location can be used to locate the explosion in three dimensions. One does need to know the propagation speed of the wave in the direction of the explosion, but I expect that in Iran oil exploration efforts will provide lots of that data.

The administration has touted the effort as a big success. I suspect that really means that the bombs were on target and that all the aircraft came home. The seismic "solution" could be available in near real time, but any BDA that involves looking at the hole in the ground will take awhile.

[Goose]

Do you think Pakistan will continue to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize?

How do you do BDA on a facility 300 feet underground?

It isn't easy. What you can do is look at where the craters are and how deep they are. Knowing a lot about the geology it MAY be possible to estimate how deep the MOP went before it exploded. That will tell you what you need to know, probably with significant error bars. Another possibility is localizing the depth of the explosion by processing the seismic waves generated by such a large event. I don't know if it is possible in this case, but lots of research went into doing similar things when nuclear tests were conducted underground. Israel may have helped by placing seismographs in appropriate locations. The delay differences at each location can be used to locate the explosion in three dimensions. One does need to know the propagation speed of the wave in the direction of the explosion, but I expect that in Iran oil exploration efforts will provide lots of that data.

The administration has touted the effort as a big success. I suspect that really means that the bombs were on target and that all the aircraft came home. The seismic "solution" could be available in near real time, but any BDA that involves looking at the hole in the ground will take awhile.

[M T]

I checked USGS’s earthquakes bigger than 2.5 an hour or two after the announcement and none were registered in Iran.

Quite possibly, the earthquake monitors are filtering out near-surface activity.

I’ve seen 1+ magnitude (depth of 0km) earthquakes registered in Santa Clara county mining ops clearly from man-made blasts. So I expected to see these bunker busters. 

I haven't seen a firm time of the bombing (I guess no one got invited to Signal!). Trump posted his announcement at 7:46 EDT (Sat 23:46 UTC).

Looking at a list of earthquakes in the vicinity of Iran (> 1, apparently)
lat/long day GMT Mag depth
(no earlier quakes on Sat GMT)
29.31N 53.07E Sat 20:08:11 GMT 2.5 5km
31.45N 57.13E Sat 23:47:59 GMT 2.6 8km
27.879 56.702 Sun 04:53:37 GMT 4.4 10km
27.800 56.790 Sun 05:05:19 GMT 3.0 10km
36.740 49.790 Sun 06:15:40 GMT 3.7 8km
32.23N 56.09E Sun 06:51:19 GMT 2.5 9km

Saturday was oddly quiet for Iran in terms of recorded earthquakes. Hmmmm.....

For reference
Fordo: 34.2605° N, 50.9042° E
Natanz: 33.5074, 51.9137
Isfahan: 32.6539° N, 51.6660° E

Relevant article: Identifying attacks in the Russia–Ukraine conflict using seismic array data

(Trump said more than just that the attack was a "big success". He said
"Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated."
I doubt he has the information to make such a claim.)

[M T]

I checked USGS’s earthquakes bigger than 2.5 an hour or two after the announcement and none were registered in Iran.

Quite possibly, the earthquake monitors are filtering out near-surface activity.

I’ve seen 1+ magnitude (depth of 0km) earthquakes registered in Santa Clara county mining ops clearly from man-made blasts. So I expected to see these bunker busters. 

I haven't seen a firm time of the bombing (I guess no one got invited to Signal!). Trump posted his announcement at 7:46 EDT (Sat 23:46 UTC).

Looking at a list of earthquakes in the vicinity of Iran (> 1, apparently)
lat/long day GMT Mag depth
(no earlier quakes on Sat GMT)
29.31N 53.07E Sat 20:08:11 GMT 2.5 5km
31.45N 57.13E Sat 23:47:59 GMT 2.6 8km
27.879 56.702 Sun 04:53:37 GMT 4.4 10km
27.800 56.790 Sun 05:05:19 GMT 3.0 10km
36.740 49.790 Sun 06:15:40 GMT 3.7 8km
32.23N 56.09E Sun 06:51:19 GMT 2.5 9km

Saturday was oddly quiet for Iran in terms of recorded earthquakes. Hmmmm.....

For reference
Fordo: 34.2605° N, 50.9042° E
Natanz: 33.5074, 51.9137
Isfahan: 32.6539° N, 51.6660° E

Relevant article: Identifying attacks in the Russia–Ukraine conflict using seismic array data

(Trump said more than just that the attack was a "big success". He said
"Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated."
I doubt he has the information to make such a claim.)