Welcome to Grappy's Soap Box - a platform for insightful commentary on politics, media, free speech, climate change, and more, focusing on Australia, the USA, and global perspectives.
So, after all the strikes and bold claims about crippling Iran's nuclear program, it turns out most of their enriched uranium might still be intact.French intelligence chief Nicolas Lerner recently stated that while Iran's nuclear capabilities have been significantly delayed, a substantial portion of their enriched uranium remains under their control.
The exact whereabouts of this uranium? Uncertain.With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors pulled out due to safety concerns, there's a glaring lack of oversight.The Times of Israel Wall Street Journal
This situation raises more questions than answers.If the uranium is still accessible, what's stopping Iran from resuming its nuclear activities?And with limited international monitoring, how would we even know?
Ultimately, while the strikes may have set back Iran's nuclear timeline, the game is far from over.The uncertainty surrounding the enriched uranium's status keeps the stakes high and the situation tense.
It happened! After what looked like endless vacillation, Trump gave the order to destroy Iran's nuclear sites using the US's bunker buster munitions. The reports to date indicate it was a total success. But let's be a bit cautious, it will require verification. No doubt it will be confirmed or otherwise in the coming days.
Hopefully, the sites are truly inoperative, but even if not, Trump, the US and Israel have had a significant victory. After decades of threatened terror by Iran's Islamists, the West has fought back.
Why did it take so long? A good question. I think the reaction from the world is at least a part of the story. Instead of universal acclaim for making the world safer, the media keeps giving mixed messages. Sure enough, there are plenty who do recognise the importance of the action and welcome it. But many nay-sayers seem to spout an endless stream of negative consequences. Yes, some are voicing fears about what may happen, and this would be reasonable if it gave some recognition to the necessity of the strikes. But no, they claim the strike was unjustified and cite the consequences that have not yet occurred as justification for not striking. Mmm, sounds like cowardice. It is an argument for inaction for fear of potential negative impacts. That is called appeasement, and we know what happens to appeasers. I think it was Churchill who said it best, "An appeaser feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last". It is that same cowardice that tries to appease bullies, and is at least one reason that Iran's Islamists have managed to get away with it so long.
But today we can celebrate. The world is a safer place due to the courage of Israel, the US and Donald Trump in facing up to the bullies.
A few days ago I speculated on the range of options Israel had for their response to Iran's unprecedented direct attack on Israel. (see my earlier Carpe Diem )
If you listen to the mainstream media it was 'ho-hum'. More significantly if you listen to Iran's comments it was also 'ho-hum, nothing to see here, not even a scratch'. So is this true?
Perhaps we should take a short detour and revisit Iran's attack. There is no doubt Iran's was a large scale direct attack on Israeli territory. Over 300 projectile weapons were directed at a wide range of military and non-military targets within Israeli territory. They included ballistic and cruise missiles, and drones. By all accounts a large majority of the drones were shot down even before they reached Israeli air-space, and virtually all the missiles were shot down without hitting their targets. The only injury reported is of a single young girl hit by shrapnel resulting from the destruction of one of the missiles.
Most significantly Israel was assisted by the US, UK and Jordan in directly shooting down the drones and missiles, and ground assistance (radar intelligence) was also provided by Saudi Arabia and UAE. The willingness of these Sunni states to join in protecting Israel from the Iranian attack is notable.
In many respects, Israel's success in repelling Iran's attack was already disarming for Iran. A miracle according to the account below.
After the large-scale attack by Iran, Israel's response seems minor. While Iran's attack was a major television extravaganza with extensive coverage by all media. Direct footage of projectiles being destroyed over Israel, including quite dramatic footage over the Al Aqsa mosque.
In contrast, the attack on Iran was not covered widely at all. There were some reports of explosions around a military base in Isfahan. Iran reported they had shot down a number of drones. We also heard some sites in Syria and Iraq were bombed. No casualties were reported. Israel has not commented on its attack, at all. This allowed Iran to downplay the attack as insignificant. But is this true? Perhaps not.
Several reports have emerged that praise the strategic success of Israel's attack. The video below titled
In the final words of his essay "Saudi Arabia has united with Israel against Iran – and a desert storm is brewing" John Bradley of The Spectator summarizes the most recent, but potent, moves by the many protagonists of the Middle East. The everchanging landscape of allegiances has once again yielded strange bedfellows. The enmity between the Saudi and Iranian factions is greater than that with Israel, or so it seems, for now. But who can tell? A single bullet could change the course of this story. Well worth a full read.