ISRAEL ATTACKS IRAN Israel carries out preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, without U.S. involvement Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the operation would be ‘rolling back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival’ ATTA KENARE/AFP via Getty Images A general view of Tehran after Israel announced the launch of "precise strikes" on military targets in Iran on October 26, 2024. By Marc Rod June 12, 2025 SHARE Israeli leaders said they carried out a series of preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and key personnel early Thursday evening, declaring a national state of emergency as it prepares for anticipated Iranian retaliation. U.S. officials took steps to distance themselves from the Israeli strikes, emphasizing that it was not involved. Israelis were instructed to stay close to protected spaces and avoid gatherings, educational activities have been canceled and the Israeli airspace has been closed. The Israeli Embassy in Washington issued a statement that Israel had launched a “preemptive, precise, combined offensive to strike Iran’s nuclear program,” and that Israeli jets had been involved in the “first stage” targeting “dozens of military targets, including nuclear targets in different areas of Iran.” “Today, Iran is closer than ever to obtaining a nuclear weapon. Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the Iranian regime are an existential threat to the state of Israel and to the wider world,” the statement reads. “The State of Israel has no choice but to fulfill the obligation to act in defense of its citizens and will continue to do so everywhere it is required to do so, as we have done in the past.” In a prerecorded statement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the operation, named “Rising Lion,” was aimed at “rolling back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival,” and would “continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat.” He said that Israel had targeted Iran’s nuclear enrichment and weaponization program, its enrichment facility in Natanz, its leading nuclear scientist working on the bomb and its ballistic missile program. Netanyahu said that Iran has amassed enough uranium for nine atomic bombs in recent years, and taken “steps it has never taken before … to weaponize this enriched uranium” and if not stopped, could produce a nuclear weapon within a few months. “When enemies vow to destroy you, believe them. When enemies build weapons of mass destruction, stop them,” Netanyahu said. “As the Bible teaches us, when someone comes to kill you, rise and act first. This is exactly what Israel has done today. We have risen like lions to defend ourselves.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement the U.S. did not participate in the strikes and urged Iran not to retaliate against American targets. “Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense. President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel,” Rubio said. Just hours before the strikes, President Donald Trump said on social media the U.S. remains “committed to a Diplomatic Resolution to the Iran Nuclear Issue!” and “They could be a Great Country, but they first must completely give up hopes of obtaining a Nuclear Weapon.” Dana Stroul, the former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East under President Joe Biden and the research director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the strike “appears to be the first wave of an Israeli campaign.” “The initial target set in downtown Tehran, including what appear to be precise strikes at the residences of senior officials, suggests an intent to paralyze the leadership and command and control of the regime,” Stroul told Jewish Insider. “Follow-on sets of targets could be much broader and geographically diverse.” The strikes come a day after the International Atomic Energy Agency voted to censure Iran for noncompliance with nonproliferation obligations. “The Iranian regime appears to have grievously misunderestimated Israeli intent — in a post-Oct. 7 environment, the Israelis were not going to sit back and wait while Iran took additional aggressive steps in its nuclear program as the IAEA definitively confirmed its noncompliance,” Stroul added. “What remains unclear is whether or not President Trump gave the greenlight only days before his envoy Steve Witkoff was supposed to travel back to the region for another round of nuclear negotiations.” Trump’s self-imposed two-month deadline for nuclear talks expired this week. Stroul said that Rubio’s comments were “stunning.” “The American secretary of state is unambiguously stating publicly that Israel made its decision on its own,” she explained. “When Rubio says: Iran should not target U.S. personnel or U.S. interests, there is a very real risk that the Iranians implicitly understand this as a green light to directly attack Israel. What is left unsaid is whether or not the United States will actively participate in the defense of Israel as it did when Iran directly attacked in April and October of last year.” She said the “ambiguity or suggestion of daylight between the United States and Israel runs the risk of emboldening adversaries.”
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment