Israel launches strikes against Iran, Defense Minister says

On-the-ground reports in Israel

• One commenter in Israel describes 3 a.m. nationwide “extreme” emergency alerts instructing civilians to follow Home Front Command guidance due to a “significant threat.”

US, Israel, and negotiation dynamics with Iran

• Several posts argue recent US diplomacy with Iran was incoherent or bad-faith: Iran’s non-nuclear “red lines” were allegedly ignored, culminating in military escalation framed as unavoidable.
• Others counter that the US previously achieved an Iran nuclear deal and that current failures are tied to specific administrations, not inherent US incapacity.
• There is disagreement over who is driving events: some say Israel is effectively directing US Middle East policy; others see some continuity and constraints on all sides.
• A claim appears that a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator was injured in the strikes, seen by some as undermining diplomacy further.

Is the strike ‘preemptive’? Legal and moral arguments

• One thread uses Michael Walzer’s criteria for justifying preemptive war (clear intent, active preparations, higher risk if delayed) and asks if Israel’s attack meets them.
• Critics say the strike is at best a counterattack in a chain of actions: Gaza war → Houthi/Iran-backed missile attacks on Israel and shipping → Israeli strikes in Iran.
• Proponents cite:
  • Iran’s long-standing rhetoric about “wiping Israel off the map.”
  • Iran’s arming and directing of proxies (Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah) and ongoing missile launches.
  • Uranium enrichment levels and nuclear facility advances reported by international bodies.
• Others argue that in practice “might makes right” in geopolitics, with international law and the UN largely toothless, though some push back that moral discourse still matters.

Broader Israel–Palestine and Hamas context

• Long subthreads revisit:
  • Hamas’s Oct 7 attack and mass killings, framed by some as the core reason for Israel’s current operations.
  • Counter-claims that Gaza has been turned into a “prison” and subjected to a slow, now accelerated, “genocide,” with far higher Palestinian than Israeli casualties over decades.
  • Debate over whether Israel “supported”/tolerated Hamas financially (e.g., Qatar funds) to weaken the Palestinian Authority.
  • Disputes over the Oslo process, Camp David 2000 maps, and whether Palestinians rejected a “fantastic” deal or a non-viable, fragmented state.
  • The assassination of Rabin is framed by some as historically pivotal; others note multiple negotiation rounds continued afterward and stress Palestinian violence and PA non-compliance.

Nuclear weapons, deterrence, and proliferation

• Some posters openly hope the strikes degrade Iran’s nuclear and drone capabilities and prevent it from becoming a nuclear state.
• Others note Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal and argue that US/Israeli dominance and interventions are themselves major drivers of nuclear proliferation.
• Several comments suggest Iran seeks nuclear weapons mainly as deterrence against Israel; others say “the world is better with a non-nuclear Iran,” even if not all regions benefit.
• Ukraine’s experience under the Budapest Memorandum is cited as a cautionary tale likely to push more states toward nukes.

Netanyahu, domestic Israeli politics, and war

• One line of argument: Netanyahu’s best path to remain in power is perpetual or escalated conflict, now extended to Iran.
• Others respond that he is under legal and political pressure but deny he is a “war criminal” in a formal sense; they question the legitimacy of international warrants and say he won’t voluntarily submit to such courts.
• Multiple posts assert protests inside Israel have continued and grown during the war, though the strikes on Iran themselves are believed to be domestically popular.
• Some commenters note that Hamas’s Oct 7 attack reversed a trend of Israeli refusals to serve, suddenly boosting IDF volunteering, and undercut internal movements against the government.

US role and risk of wider war

• Several people hope the US “stays out” of direct conflict, fearing escalation into a US–Iran–Israel war or broader regional war involving Russia and China.
• Others argue the Trump administration effectively lets Israel act with near-total freedom, exposing the US to greater risk, and worry about a world sliding into multiple simultaneous conflicts (Middle East, Ukraine, Taiwan).
• There is criticism that negative discussion of Iran’s proxies and executions is downvoted while similar criticism of Israel/US proxies is upvoted, seen as evidence of bias.

Alleged target lists and military/“cyber” aspects

• One commenter posts what is claimed to be a TOP SECRET US list of Iranian nuclear and military targets (Natanz, Parchin, Tehran research reactor, etc.) and notes overlaps with current strikes, plus predictions about Israeli submarine-launched missiles and electronic warfare.
• Another questions the authenticity and provenance of such documents, warning they could be fabricated.
• There is skepticism toward the broad labeling of jamming and spoofing as “cyber-war,” seen as partially funding-driven rhetoric.

Connections to Russia–Ukraine and Iran’s proxies

• Some express hope that hitting Iranian infrastructure will reduce drone support to Russia (Shahed systems) used against Ukraine.
• Others respond that Russia has already localized much production and that Ukrainian intelligence estimates very high domestic output, limiting the impact of strikes in Iran.
• Iran’s support for Russia and for regional proxies (Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas) is repeatedly cited to justify limited strikes; critics ask why similar logic isn’t accepted for adversaries of the US and Israel.