[Goose]

Good night, sweet prince. Even if they are Iranian, it hurts to see Tomcats blow up.
https://x.com/manniefabian/status/1934665118530322934
(These are non-operational F14 airframes that have been in this location for a couple years. Israel may have already destroyed some of their flying siblings in hangars, though I think they may have some in deep underground hangars that may still have survived so far)
Also in the tweet are strikes against the Iranian state broadcasting building. They were on air when the strikes happened. Video below (there are reportedly deaths and injuries from that strike but the video below from the broadcast doesn't show any gore).
https://x.com/arash_tehran/status/1934630559705116858
These are all claimed drone strikes. And we have video of Israeli drones operating freely over Tehran, as below.
https://x.com/AuroraIntel/status/1934641788385480830
------
Back to Ukraine, Ukrainian intelligence reportedly recently destroyed an electrical transformer in Kaliningrad. Video from that operation below.
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1934181861812547646
------

Good Stuff! Thanks! The Kaliningrad transformer destruction is beautiful in its simplicity! Let the cooling oil drain out. The 5 million dollar damage isn't the point. It is the degradation of the Baltic Fleet and the base itself that is important. It won't be a quick fix.

Finally, seeing ballistic missile impacts in major cities is very jarring. Must be incredibly frightening to be seeing those coming at you. Israel has intercepted the vast majority, but there have still been impacts in multiple Israeli cities. If any of those had nuclear warheads, there are millions dead now in Tel Aviv and Haifa.

Amen. It also shows that shooting down ballistic missiles is never a 100% proposition, even if you have a "very good" capability. The US should never count on a missile defense system to be leak-proof.

A future Iranian regime, even one guided solely by realpolitik with no religious animus towards Israel, would be driven to obtain nuclear weapons. Would be a far cheaper way of establishing deterrence than trying to rebuild a conventional force that could withstand what Israel just did to them.

Obviously that is a possibility. However a Iranian regime with no religious bias IMO might very well conclude that not antagonizing Israel would be cheaper than deterring them. Being a "good neighbor" in the Middle East is not wise without having a minimal military. This is necessary to ensure your neighbors won't view you as a defenseless prize to be easily seized, but you don't need nuclear weapons to do that. One thing that always amazed me is that IMO while Iran's nuclear ambitions were publicly justified as a way to deter Israel (who is also undoubtedly a nuclear state) that wasn't the main reason. The main reason is to allow Iran to threaten its non-nuclear neighbors. If Iran had nuclear weapons it would be in the same condition the US and Russia are. We really don't want to get in a war with each other because it may escalate. We can't threaten each other with nuclear weapons because it is MAD. Iran would be no better off vs. Israel if it had nuclear weapons. It couldn't use them. Both sides know it.

I think Israel's best hope/plan is for Iran to become a failed state a la Libya or Gaza. Too weak to do much damage. Iran is 90 million people though. I still think Israel is being incredibly reckless here, though their military success has been impressive.

IMO Israel would prefer a stable Iran that wants to improve its economy more than to become the "big dog" in the Middle East. A prosperous Iran could be a counterweight to the ambitions of Turkey and Saudi Arabia in that direction. A failed state could be destabilizing. OTOH anything is possible. Israel is taking a lot of chances. Whether that is "reckless" may depend a lot on what Israel believes they can accomplish. They are in the deep end of the pool, and their margin of error is very small IMO.

---

I also wonder if the damage Israel is doing allows enough plausible deniability for a B2 strike to be done without acknowledgement of US involvement. Or perhaps the damage done by bunker busters from a B2 would be so characteristic it would be impossible to deny.

I doubt there would be any doubt about such a strike if it takes place. The munitions alone would make it undeniable.

While Trump did campaign on an isolationist platform, I wouldn't be shocked if he used this opportunity to have this be his "I got Bin Laden" moment, where with relatively minimal US involvement he could claim to have destroyed Iran's nuclear program. 

From Harris polling: 
85% of voters say Iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. 
60% of voters say the administration "should support" an Israeli effort to take out Iran's nuclear weapons program
54% support destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program with a military operation.

All of those numbers are even higher when looking at his republican base alone. But even democrats are split.

Independent of the polls, Trump always was against Iran getting nuclear weapons. He restored sanctions and abrogated the treaty in his first term. He could also claim in his second term he gave Iran a chance to negotiate and they didn't. Taking a low-risk free shot would be entirely in concert with his policy IMO.

[Goose]

Good night, sweet prince. Even if they are Iranian, it hurts to see Tomcats blow up.
https://x.com/manniefabian/status/1934665118530322934
(These are non-operational F14 airframes that have been in this location for a couple years. Israel may have already destroyed some of their flying siblings in hangars, though I think they may have some in deep underground hangars that may still have survived so far)
Also in the tweet are strikes against the Iranian state broadcasting building. They were on air when the strikes happened. Video below (there are reportedly deaths and injuries from that strike but the video below from the broadcast doesn't show any gore).
https://x.com/arash_tehran/status/1934630559705116858
These are all claimed drone strikes. And we have video of Israeli drones operating freely over Tehran, as below.
https://x.com/AuroraIntel/status/1934641788385480830
------
Back to Ukraine, Ukrainian intelligence reportedly recently destroyed an electrical transformer in Kaliningrad. Video from that operation below.
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1934181861812547646
------

Good Stuff! Thanks! The Kaliningrad transformer destruction is beautiful in its simplicity! Let the cooling oil drain out. The 5 million dollar damage isn't the point. It is the degradation of the Baltic Fleet and the base itself that is important. It won't be a quick fix.

Finally, seeing ballistic missile impacts in major cities is very jarring. Must be incredibly frightening to be seeing those coming at you. Israel has intercepted the vast majority, but there have still been impacts in multiple Israeli cities. If any of those had nuclear warheads, there are millions dead now in Tel Aviv and Haifa.

Amen. It also shows that shooting down ballistic missiles is never a 100% proposition, even if you have a "very good" capability. The US should never count on a missile defense system to be leak-proof.

A future Iranian regime, even one guided solely by realpolitik with no religious animus towards Israel, would be driven to obtain nuclear weapons. Would be a far cheaper way of establishing deterrence than trying to rebuild a conventional force that could withstand what Israel just did to them.

Obviously that is a possibility. However a Iranian regime with no religious bias IMO might very well conclude that not antagonizing Israel would be cheaper than deterring them. Being a "good neighbor" in the Middle East is not wise without having a minimal military. This is necessary to ensure your neighbors won't view you as a defenseless prize to be easily seized, but you don't need nuclear weapons to do that. One thing that always amazed me is that IMO while Iran's nuclear ambitions were publicly justified as a way to deter Israel (who is also undoubtedly a nuclear state) that wasn't the main reason. The main reason is to allow Iran to threaten its non-nuclear neighbors. If Iran had nuclear weapons it would be in the same condition the US and Russia are. We really don't want to get in a war with each other because it may escalate. We can't threaten each other with nuclear weapons because it is MAD. Iran would be no better off vs. Israel if it had nuclear weapons. It couldn't use them. Both sides know it.

I think Israel's best hope/plan is for Iran to become a failed state a la Libya or Gaza. Too weak to do much damage. Iran is 90 million people though. I still think Israel is being incredibly reckless here, though their military success has been impressive.

IMO Israel would prefer a stable Iran that wants to improve its economy more than to become the "big dog" in the Middle East. A prosperous Iran could be a counterweight to the ambitions of Turkey and Saudi Arabia in that direction. A failed state could be destabilizing. OTOH anything is possible. Israel is taking a lot of chances. Whether that is "reckless" may depend a lot on what Israel believes they can accomplish. They are in the deep end of the pool, and their margin of error is very small IMO.

---

I also wonder if the damage Israel is doing allows enough plausible deniability for a B2 strike to be done without acknowledgement of US involvement. Or perhaps the damage done by bunker busters from a B2 would be so characteristic it would be impossible to deny.

I doubt there would be any doubt about such a strike if it takes place. The munitions alone would make it undeniable.

While Trump did campaign on an isolationist platform, I wouldn't be shocked if he used this opportunity to have this be his "I got Bin Laden" moment, where with relatively minimal US involvement he could claim to have destroyed Iran's nuclear program. 

From Harris polling: 
85% of voters say Iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. 
60% of voters say the administration "should support" an Israeli effort to take out Iran's nuclear weapons program
54% support destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program with a military operation.

All of those numbers are even higher when looking at his republican base alone. But even democrats are split.

Independent of the polls, Trump always was against Iran getting nuclear weapons. He restored sanctions and abrogated the treaty in his first term. He could also claim in his second term he gave Iran a chance to negotiate and they didn't. Taking a low-risk free shot would be entirely in concert with his policy IMO.