Kinetically, i.e. with a missile/bomb of some sort.
Clarification: A nuclear site is any Iranian facility used for the development, enrichment, storage, or processing of nuclear material or technology, including reactors, enrichment facilities, uranium mines, and research centers located on Iranian soil.
this market resolved this question as YES
https://manifold.markets/Jwags/will-an-iranian-nuclear-facility-be-1b749bfbf815
@Marnix that's not actually the bottleneck here, Israel probably doesn't have the power projection to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities without American military backing (they could maybe hit a few sites - though they'd need American bunker busters - but taking out the whole program and keeping Iran from rebuilding it requires active American support, not just non-interference.
Well that or first use of nuclear weapons by Israel, but they obviously don't want to do that).
@ShakedKoplewitz Huh, interesting point. I suppose that'd make sense. I still see the probability having risen, but maybe not quite as high as I initially thought
@ICRainbow it's not impossible, but a strike that doesn't knock them out could both cost Israel deterrence power and help Iran learn how to defend them better, so there's strong incentives against it.
An American researcher said an Israeli airstrike on Saturday hit a building that was part of Iran's defunct nuclear weapons development program, and he and another researcher said facilities used to mix solid fuel for missiles also were struck.
The assessments based on commercial satellite imagery were reached separately by David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector, and Decker Eveleth, an associate research analyst at CNA, a Washington think tank.
“This isn’t a nuclear facility, as Iran… called it a military facility, so that gave Israel a green light to attack it.”
@VonGadke It seems like the vast majority of reporting says that Israel deliberately avoided nuclear sites, and this facility's status is debated, so in my opinion it should not count.
@RobinBruce struggling to see how you don't understand...
Retaliation took a month.
Retaliation was incredibly muted; probably the best outcome for Iran.
Appears advanced notice was given to Iran.
Israel appears to have heeded US "demands" with respect to the scope and scale of the strike.
No immediate indication of Iranian retaliation.
It's an escalation relative to Israel's previous retaliation (at Isfahan) and Iran's retaliation again displaying IDF capabilities (more deaths, actual military asset damage etc.) which may act as a deterrence.
@vitamind on the timing though, it’s not implausible that Israel would wait until around the US election to strike hard in order to maximize impact/chaos. That’s mainly why I’m not all-out NO.
@vitamind if Israel is going to disregard the US’s requests (not a 0% probability), then it has an incentive to wait and time a major attack around the election for whatever leverage / impact they might hope to have. If that’s not implausible then the fact that a major attack hasn’t happened shouldn’t bear on the price.
@NicoDelon seems increbily unlikely. Why would Israel strike again? Why would they want to cause chaos? Why would they want to meddle with the US Election?
@vitamind I can’t read Netanyahu’s mind. Nor can you. Which is why we should be open to the possibility that he (thinks he) has reasons or incentives.
@NicoDelon PS: if you really think this is impossible you should clearly bet this market down close to zero. It isn’t that hard and that’s a lot of free money for you. I’m a large NO but this is a matter of probability. Not binary.
@NicoDelon I'm asking why Israel would strike again with no retaliation from Iran; why Israel would specifically strike to cause US Election chaos and now you're putting words in my mouth –why?
I stated nothing about this being question being impossible to resolve to Yes – note I said "seems increbily unlikely" – nor did I mention anything about it being impossible that another strike may happen to cause election chaos.
Thanks for the condescending "free money" spiel though.
@vitamind “if” is a word you left out. I never said you did consider it impossible. But you keep trying to convince me that I’m wrong to entertain a small probability of chaos/unknown factors.
>But you keep trying to convince me that I’m wrong to entertain a small probability of chaos/unknown factors.
Now that's a leap! For the record:
You: >if Israel is going to disregard the US’s requests (not a 0% probability)
Me: >seems increbily unlikely. Why would Israel strike again? Why would they want to cause chaos? Why would they want to meddle with the US Election?
I've tried to convince you of nothing; I only asked you three questions.
@vitamind I think we’re talking past each other. We were both NO holders. I agreed with your reply to Robin, just wanted to add a caveat regarding the timing, and suddenly I had to justify in detail my uncertainty. That’s very weird.
@vitamind Israel (and, honestly, anyone but the axis) would really want to see Iran nuclear program gone. In this year it seemed like Israel tried hard to provoke serious response that would justify US greenlighting use of B-2s. Unfortunately for them, the election shenanigans are more important.
I'd expect even more provocative Israeli covert ops and increased offensive against Iran proxies.
If they're on track to spin down and simply keep beating their neighbors, then I'd have to dump my YES.
@RobinBruce one month for Iran, then another month for Israel (and US) to get their collective shit together... The timelines are getting tight.