As missiles fly across the Persian Gulf, analysts warn the region’s most critical resource may not be oil — but water.

The war sparked by US and Israeli strikes on Iran has already disrupted tanker routes and energy exports. Yet experts say the greater long-term risk lies in the fragile desalination systems that keep Gulf megacities alive.

Without them, millions could lose drinking water within days.

The ‘Saltwater Kingdoms’ Behind Gulf Prosperity

Oil built the modern Gulf. Desalinated seawater sustains it.

Countries including Kuwait, Oman and Saudi Arabia depend heavily on desalination plants that turn seawater into fresh water through energy-intensive processes such as reverse osmosis.

The reliance is staggering. Around 90% of Kuwait’s drinking water comes from desalination, compared with about 86% in Oman and roughly 70% in Saudi Arabia — infrastructure that powers everything from homes and hotels to industry.

“People think of them as petrostates,” said historian Michael Christopher Low of the University of Utah. “But they’re really saltwater kingdoms.”

Missiles Are Already Landing Near Critical Plants

The war has already pushed dangerously close to key water infrastructure.

Iranian strikes on Jebel Ali Port in Dubai landed about 12 miles from one of the world’s largest desalination plants. Damage has also been reported near the Fujairah F1 water and power complex in the United Arab Emirates and at Kuwait’s Doha West desalination facility.

Many desalination plants are integrated with power stations. Even indirect damage to electricity grids could halt water production for entire cities.

A Strategic Weak Point in Modern Warfare

Experts warn the facilities present an asymmetric target.

Iran may lack the capacity to strike the United States or Israel directly, but attacks on Gulf infrastructure could pressure regional governments to intervene. “It’s a way to impose costs,” said water security analyst David Michel of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The systems themselves are highly exposed. Intake pipes, treatment plants and power supplies form a delicate chain where damage to a single component can stop production.

A Crisis That Could Unfold in Days

The vulnerability is long recognised. A Central Intelligence Agency assessment warned that attacks on just a handful of major plants could trigger national emergencies across the Gulf.

A leaked US diplomatic cable once warned that Riyadh could face evacuation within a week if the massive Jubail desalination plant were disabled.

If the war escalates further, the Gulf’s oil wealth may offer little protection. Without desalinated water, its modern cities simply cannot function.

Oil built the Persian Gulf. Desalinated water keeps it alive. War could threaten both

This is what I posted in another thread...

Desalination infrastructure is far more critical to the GCC states than it is to Iran. Countries like Bahrain, the UAE and Qatar rely on desalination for the vast majority of their potable water. Iran, by contrast, only depends heavily on desalination along parts of its southern coast - and those areas are far less densely populated than places like Manama, Abu Dhabi, Dubai or Doha - the vulnerability is not symmetrical.

That said, the plant reportedly struck on Qeshm serves a relatively small population, and the retaliatory drone strike against a desalination facility in Bahrain have reportedly caused only limited damage that can be repaired quickly.

Which, makes me think these strikes were more symbolic than strategic. The US signalling that it is willing and able to hit that kind of infrastructure, and Iran responding by showing it can do the same - directly touching infrastructure that affects civilian life within the GCC. A message exchange more than an attempt to cause real disruption, at least for now.

However, if desalination plants were ever targeted in a sustained or deliberate way, that would represent a very different threshold. Striking infrastructure that directly sustains civilian populations would be interpreted as an attack on the sovereignty and basic survival of those states, and it would almost certainly trigger a far broader military response - the kind of escalation that risks pulling the region into a full-scale conflict - as of now, restraint is being shown by both sides.

45 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

This is what I posted in another thread...

Desalination infrastructure is far more critical to the GCC states than it is to Iran. Countries like Bahrain, the UAE and Qatar rely on desalination for the vast majority of their potable water. Iran, by contrast, only depends heavily on desalination along parts of its southern coast - and those areas are far less densely populated than places like Manama, Abu Dhabi, Dubai or Doha - the vulnerability is not symmetrical.

That said, the plant reportedly struck on Qeshm serves a relatively small population, and the retaliatory drone strike against a desalination facility in Bahrain have reportedly caused only limited damage that can be repaired quickly.

Which, makes me think these strikes were more symbolic than strategic. The US signalling that it is willing and able to hit that kind of infrastructure, and Iran responding by showing it can do the same - directly touching infrastructure that affects civilian life within the GCC. A message exchange more than an attempt to cause real disruption, at least for now.

However, if desalination plants were ever targeted in a sustained or deliberate way, that would represent a very different threshold. Striking infrastructure that directly sustains civilian populations would be interpreted as an attack on the sovereignty and basic survival of those states, and it would almost certainly trigger a far broader military response - the kind of escalation that risks pulling the region into a full-scale conflict - as of now, restraint is being shown by both sides.

Listening to an interview yesterday, there was talk that the Gulf States' leaders were absolutely furious with Iran for its strikes on their countries, and if it persisted they would unleash the full power of the US militaries based in their States.

The Iranian President apologised but the attacks continued. A sign, perhaps, of emerging chaos within the Iranian power structure.

5 minutes ago, bannork said:

Listening to an interview yesterday, there was talk that the Gulf States' leaders were absolutely furious with Iran for its strikes on their countries, and if it persisted they would unleash the full power of the US militaries based in their States.

The Iranian President apologised but the attacks continued. A sign, perhaps, of emerging chaos within the Iranian power structure.

I addressed that in another thread yesterday:

The apology by Irans president at first glance that sounded like de-escalation. Many people will read it that way. It wasn't...

“We apologise to our neighbours for the attacks… Iran will not target them unless attacks are launched on Iran from their territory.”

The key part of the statement was the condition attached to it: unless attacks on Iran are launched from their territory.

Right now that is exactly what is happening. The United States is flying operations against Iran from bases across the Gulf. Aircraft, drones, and support operations are running out of Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates, and Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, alongside facilities in Bahrain and Saudi.

Those locations are the operational staging ground for American bombers, fighters, and drones. So Iran is not really saying “we will stop”. What it is effectively saying is: if attacks on Iran continue to originate from your territory, you remain part of the battlefield.

That turns the 'apology' into a pressure play directed at the Gulf states themselves. Iran cannot defeat the United States militarily. But it can try to complicate the environment the US operates from.

The objective is to force the Gulf governments into a difficult calculation - continue hosting US forces and absorb the risk that comes with it, or ask Washington to move those assets elsewhere.

If the US were pushed out of those bases, it would lose much of its immediate operational footprint in the region. The distance, response times, and logistics of operations would all change overnight.

There is also a practical dimension. Iran’s missile and drone inventories are not unlimited. Narrowing the number of fronts it is actively striking reduces the rate of expenditure and allows it to focus resources on what it considers higher priority targets - particularly Israel and direct US military assets.

So this announcement shouldn’t be interpreted as an apology or a step toward peace. It is more accurately a strategic signal - aimed not at the United States, but at the countries hosting it.

An attack on non combatant desalination plants will result in a leveling of Iranian infrastructure including dams, electrical generation,and roadways. Iran would be bombed back to the stone age.

27 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I addressed that in another thread yesterday:

The apology by Irans president at first glance that sounded like de-escalation. Many people will read it that way. It wasn't...

“We apologise to our neighbours for the attacks… Iran will not target them unless attacks are launched on Iran from their territory.”

The key part of the statement was the condition attached to it: unless attacks on Iran are launched from their territory.

Right now that is exactly what is happening. The United States is flying operations against Iran from bases across the Gulf. Aircraft, drones, and support operations are running out of Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates, and Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, alongside facilities in Bahrain and Saudi.

Those locations are the operational staging ground for American bombers, fighters, and drones. So Iran is not really saying “we will stop”. What it is effectively saying is: if attacks on Iran continue to originate from your territory, you remain part of the battlefield.

That turns the 'apology' into a pressure play directed at the Gulf states themselves. Iran cannot defeat the United States militarily. But it can try to complicate the environment the US operates from.

The objective is to force the Gulf governments into a difficult calculation - continue hosting US forces and absorb the risk that comes with it, or ask Washington to move those assets elsewhere.

If the US were pushed out of those bases, it would lose much of its immediate operational footprint in the region. The distance, response times, and logistics of operations would all change overnight.

There is also a practical dimension. Iran’s missile and drone inventories are not unlimited. Narrowing the number of fronts it is actively striking reduces the rate of expenditure and allows it to focus resources on what it considers higher priority targets - particularly Israel and direct US military assets.

So this announcement shouldn’t be interpreted as an apology or a step toward peace. It is more accurately a strategic signal - aimed not at the United States, but at the countries hosting it.

Is it true to say that whilst the Gulf States prohibited the US from operating offensive operations from their bases, once they came under attack they allowed the US to commit defensive operations, intercepting drones and missiles from their bases?

Or have the Gulf states now allowed the US to conduct bombing raids on Iran?

Going to school in Bahrain, I was always told that "Bahrain" meant "two seas"; it had its own supply of fresh water eminating from mountains in Saudi Arabia and Iran. You could go down to the beach, dig down 12 inches or so, and hit water; not sea water, but brackish water. The Pearl divers would swim down to the bottom and fill up goat skin bladders with the heavier fresh water at the bottom. In ancient times, Bahrain was known as Dilmun, an important point of trade between the Indus Valley and Sumerian civilisations. And Gilgamesh was a Bahraini.

The region does have water, but not sufficient to support the largely expatriate population.

10 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

An attack on non combatant desalination plants will result in a leveling of Iranian infrastructure including dams, electrical generation,and roadways. Iran would be bombed back to the stone age.

I wondered how long it would be before "bombing back to the stone age" cropped up!

Ironic really, given the United States current signature, almost neanderthal, approach to international affairs!

It does not appear as if Trump and his ridiculous council of advisors even considered this for a nanosecond. The spread of this conflict across the gulf seems to have caught these incredibly dull individuals totally by surprise. Iran still has many cards in a Tan's and crippling the desalination plants in the region is most certainly a potential threat of epic proportions.

Iran could also very easily unleash its proxy forces on the US mainland where there are likely sleeper cells already in place. Since only a minority of Americans support the war as it is, I wonder how they would feel if there were major attacks on US cities.

Trump does appear to be going down in flames, his popularity is declining daily, and it's just a matter of time until the midterms cripple this bloated artifice of a man, in his sorry and huge entirety.

10 hours ago, bannork said:

Is it true to say that whilst the Gulf States prohibited the US from operating offensive operations from their bases, once they came under attack they allowed the US to commit defensive operations, intercepting drones and missiles from their bases?

Or have the Gulf states now allowed the US to conduct bombing raids on Iran?

The GCC states have permitted attacks on Iran 'from' their soil.

9 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Going to school in Bahrain, I was always told that "Bahrain" meant "two seas"; it had its own supply of fresh water eminating from mountains in Saudi Arabia and Iran. You could go down to the beach, dig down 12 inches or so, and hit water; not sea water, but brackish water. The Pearl divers would swim down to the bottom and fill up goat skin bladders with the heavier fresh water at the bottom. In ancient times, Bahrain was known as Dilmun, an important point of trade between the Indus Valley and Sumerian civilisations. And Gilgamesh was a Bahraini.

The region does have water, but not sufficient to support the largely expatriate population.

Bahrain historically had natural freshwater stored in limestone aquifers, the Dammam aquifer system, which was recharged from rainfall further inland in eastern Saudi Arabia. At one time the groundwater fed numerous artesian springs across the island, which supported drinking water supplies and agriculture, particularly date palm cultivation.

But, heavy groundwater extraction over the past several decades, increased population demand (a 10 fold increase) combined with reduced aquifer pressure and seawater intrusion, has caused most of these springs to dry up and much of the remaining groundwater is now brackish (mixture of salt and fresh water) - over 75-80% of Bahrains fresh water is from desalination.

20-25% of Bahrain's water comes from Aquifers which, as you [roadsternut] wrote are Brackish - the desalination process via low pressure reverse osmosis is less expensive and simpler than full on desalination from sea water, as the saline content at ~1,000-10,000 mg/L is much less than sea water at ~35,000 mg/L of dissolved salts (note: freshwater is 500 mg/L of dissolved salts).

But... 20-25% is no where near sufficient to sustain the existing population of 1.6-1.7 million people, where as in the 1950's, pre-desalination demand the population was 115,000 to 120,000 people.

The first desalination plant was built in 1976 - the population of Bahrain at that time was 215,000 people.

48 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

It does not appear as if Trump and his ridiculous council of advisors even considered this for a nanosecond. The spread of this conflict across the gulf seems to have caught these incredibly dull individuals totally by surprise. Iran still has many cards in a Tan's and crippling the desalination plants in the region is most certainly a potential threat of epic proportions.

Of course 'they' considered it. Do you really believe the Trump administration, its advisers, military strategists and intelligence agencies somehow failed to recognise that much of the Middle East depends on desalination for its potable water? Countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain produce the vast majority of their drinking water from desalinated seawater, with some cities relying on it for well over 90% of supply. These plants are major pieces of critical infrastructure, well known to every government and military planners in the region. The idea that this dependence somehow escaped the attention of the White House, the Pentagon and the intelligence community is absurd and only highlights a ridiculous bias in your commentary.

48 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Iran could also very easily unleash its proxy forces on the US mainland where there are likely sleeper cells already in place. Since only a minority of Americans support the war as it is, I wonder how they would feel if there were major attacks on US cities.

Possibly a lot better than if Iran threatened to Launch ICBM with nuclear warheads

Regarding support for strikes.

PBS / NPR / Marist poll (March 2026): 56% oppose U.S. military action in Iran / 44% support.

Washington Post poll (March 2026): 52% oppose recent U.S. strikes on Iran / 39% support.

Economist / YouGov poll (Jan–Feb 2026): 48% oppose military action / 28% support.

Marist national poll (Jan 2026): 57% oppose U.S. military action in Iran / 42% support.

Try running the same poll with a different question: Do you support Iran possessing intercontinental ballistic nuclear warheads capable of reaching the U.S. mainland? - the response turns to 80% against.

48 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Trump does appear to be going down in flames, his popularity is declining daily, and it's just a matter of time until the midterms cripple this bloated artifice of a man, in his sorry and huge entirety.

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Of course 'they' considered it. Do you really believe the Trump administration, its advisers, military strategists and intelligence agencies somehow failed to recognise that much of the Middle East depends on desalination for its potable water? Countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain produce the vast majority of their drinking water from desalinated seawater, with some cities relying on it for well over 90% of supply. These plants are major pieces of critical infrastructure, well known to every government and military planners in the region. The idea that this dependence somehow escaped the attention of the White House, the Pentagon and the intelligence community is absurd and only highlights a ridiculous bias in your commentary.

Possibly a lot better than if Iran threatened to Launch ICBM with nuclear warheads

Regarding support for strikes.

PBS / NPR / Marist poll (March 2026): 56% oppose U.S. military action in Iran / 44% support.

Washington Post poll (March 2026): 52% oppose recent U.S. strikes on Iran / 39% support.

Economist / YouGov poll (Jan–Feb 2026): 48% oppose military action / 28% support.

Marist national poll (Jan 2026): 57% oppose U.S. military action in Iran / 42% support.

Try running the same poll with a different question: Do you support Iran possessing intercontinental ballistic nuclear warheads capable of reaching the U.S. mainland? - the response turns to 80% against.

And I'll bet you believed Bush Jr and Dick Cheney that Iraq possessed WMD's that they were on the verge of using. GOP party nonsense. Both Trump and Netanyahu spoke to how decimated the Iran nuclear program was just this past June.

Let’s not forget that any attack on infrastructure critical for civilians is a war crime.

That means desalination plants.

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

And I'll bet you believed Bush Jr and Dick Cheney that Iraq possessed WMD's that they were on the verge of using. GOP party nonsense. Both Trump and Netanyahu spoke to how decimated the Iran nuclear program was just this past June.

More than that spidermike007, the nuclear programme was OBLITERATED, absolutely nothing left, according to the Laurel and Hardy ( well, here's another fine mess you've gotten me into) duo.

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

Let’s not forget that any attack on infrastructure critical for civilians is a war crime.

That means desalination plants.

How about an attack on a school for girls, that doesn't count? How about an attack on a warship way out of the war zone, returning from an exercise that 74 countries participated in including the US?

Just who is the real criminal here? Be careful with your answer.

Actually, I was referring to the desalination plant in Iran already hit by Israel or the USA

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

It does not appear as if Trump and his ridiculous council of advisors even considered this for a nanosecond. The spread of this conflict across the gulf seems to have caught these incredibly dull individuals totally by surprise. Iran still has many cards in a Tan's and crippling the desalination plants in the region is most certainly a potential threat of epic proportions.

Iran could also very easily unleash its proxy forces on the US mainland where there are likely sleeper cells already in place. Since only a minority of Americans support the war as it is, I wonder how they would feel if there were major attacks on US cities.

Trump does appear to be going down in flames, his popularity is declining daily, and it's just a matter of time until the midterms cripple this bloated artifice of a man, in his sorry and huge entirety.

I'm sure the religious nut jobs would love to load a truck with fertiliser and drive it into MaraLago but it's so much easier to put 6 blokes with machine guns on a RIB and send them across the Med to a tourist beach.

The American President was elected to put Americans first. On the face of it, right now he's putting Iranians first.

11 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

How about an attack on a school for girls, that doesn't count? How about an attack on a warship way out of the war zone, returning from an exercise that 74 countries participated in including the US?

Just who is the real criminal here? Be careful with your answer.

Sinking a warship is a grey area, though legally, has the US actually declared war on Iran. Some have pointed to the issue of the girls school on a military base, and suggested there was an ulterior motive to the location of the school. But the US/Israeli destruction of the Iranian desalination plant is a bit more black and white as far as the Geneva Convention is concerned. What that means is if there are any US aircrew downed over Iran (suggestions are at least one F15 ejected), they cannot expect treatment according to the Geneva Protocols. Maybe they wouldn't get that anyhow.

13 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

An attack on non combatant desalination plants will result in a leveling of Iranian infrastructure including dams, electrical generation,and roadways. Iran would be bombed back to the stone age.

IIRC Curtis Le May wanted to do that to Hanoi. How did that end?

14 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

How about an attack on a school for girls, that doesn't count? How about an attack on a warship way out of the war zone, returning from an exercise that 74 countries participated in including the US?

Just who is the real criminal here? Be careful with your answer.

The language you are using betrays an extreme bais - that 'attack on the School' was not an 'attack' - neither is it confirmed that this was a US missile.

There are multiple explanations for those of an open mind not to immiedately buy into the rhetoric and blame Trump.

1) US Targeting Error: This could occur in several ways:

- Faulty intelligence about the location.

- Misidentification of a building.

- GPS coordinate error or outdated target data.

- Human error in the targeting chain.

Even with precision-guided munitions, precision only means the weapon hits the coordinates it was given - not that the coordinates themselves were correct.

2) Electronic warfare interference

Iran has invested heavily in GPS jamming and spoofing. If a guidance system relies on GPS signals and those signals are degraded or manipulated, the weapon can:

- Drift off course.

- Revert to inertial navigation (less accurate).

- Lose terminal guidance.

That could lead to an unintended impact point.

3) Interception deflection:

Modern missile defence systems - whether Patriot, S-300/400, or other interceptors - do not always destroy the incoming missile cleanly. Possible outcomes include:

- Partial destruction where debris continues on ballistic trajectory.

- Warhead separation after interception.

- Deflection into another structure.

This has happened in several conflicts where intercepted missiles still caused casualties and it has occurred with incoming drones and missiles that have it civilian targets in the GCC's.

4) Local missile malfunction:

If Iranian forces launched a missile from near populated areas, failure modes can include:

- Booster failure.

- Guidance failure.

- Self-destruct malfunction.

- Mid-flight breakup.

A failed launch can easily land close by to the launch area - There 'appears' to be one such example of this is below, where in the past 24 hours a patriot missile was fired at incoming munitions - this reportedly impacted a residential area nearby - either because it continued to target the incoming drone as it dropped and / or failed and then failed to self destruct when it was too close to ground.

Now - IF the US can make mistakes, so can Iran - ultimately at this stage there is no proof what caused the explosion tragically killing 160 Iranian school children - we are just hearing an extreme amount of rhetoric, propoganda and bias.

For some - the truth is what the want to believe - for others there are multiple possibilities as highlighted above.

Video taken from x (twitter).

36 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Sinking a warship is a grey area, though legally, has the US actually declared war on Iran. Some have pointed to the issue of the girls school on a military base, and suggested there was an ulterior motive to the location of the school. But the US/Israeli destruction of the Iranian desalination plant is a bit more black and white as far as the Geneva Convention is concerned. What that means is if there are any US aircrew downed over Iran (suggestions are at least one F15 ejected), they cannot expect treatment according to the Geneva Protocols. Maybe they wouldn't get that anyhow.

On the issue of the tragic strike that killed 160 girls at the school in Iran, I initially found myself questioning the location - suspecting an 'ulterior' motive. The fact that the school was situated close to a military facility naturally raises concerns - placing a school near a military installation inevitably exposes children to risk during periods of conflict.

Thus: My first thought was whether this might have been a kind of “human shield” scenario, where civilian infrastructure is positioned near military assets to complicate targeting decisions.

However, looking into it more carefully, that explanation begins to look far less convincing. It turns out it is not unusual at all for schools to be located very close to military bases, particularly in urban areas where space is limited and communities grow around long-established installations.

A good of this is in Bahrain itself, there are three schools located within very close proximity to the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet headquarters in Juffair. Their presence there has never been interpreted as some form of deliberate shielding tactic - they simply exist because communities live nearby and children need schools.

So on reflection, the idea of an “ulterior motive” behind the Iranian school’s location begins to look more like a reaction driven by bias than evidence. The far simpler explanation is probably the correct one: the school was there because a school was needed there, just as schools exist near military facilities in many parts of the world.

In other words, proximity alone does not imply intent. Sometimes it simply reflects the ordinary realities of how cities and communities develop around existing infrastructure - even when that infrastructure happens to be military.

I'm amazed that nobody in this thread didn't mention that other Middle Eastern country that depends on desalination for 70-80% of its water: Israel.

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

And I'll bet you believed Bush Jr and Dick Cheney that Iraq possessed WMD's that they were on the verge of using. GOP party nonsense. Both Trump and Netanyahu spoke to how decimated the Iran nuclear program was just this past June.

Regarding WMD in Iraq - my view has always been that Western leaders acted on intelligence they believed to be credible at the time, which ultimately turned out to be wrong. The failure was in the intelligence itself, whether through flawed analysis, bad sources, or information that was pushed or “polished” to support a particular narrative.

But that situation is very different from what we’re talking about with Iran.

The information about Iran enriching uranium to around 60% U-235 doesn’t come from anonymous intelligence briefings or political claims. It comes from inspections and formal reporting by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows the IAEA to monitor its nuclear programme. Inspectors physically visit facilities such as Natanz and Fordow, review centrifuge operating data, maintain surveillance equipment, and take environmental samples that reveal the isotopic composition of uranium being processed.

From 2021 onward, and confirmed repeatedly in reports through 2024–2025, the IAEA verified that Iran had produced and accumulated uranium enriched to roughly 60% U-235. Civilian nuclear reactors typically run on fuel enriched to about 3–5%, so 60% is far beyond what is required for normal power generation and technically much closer to weapons-grade enrichment (~90%).

The mistake you’re making is assuming that because the Iraq WMD intelligence turned out to be wrong, anything related to nuclear capability today must also be suspect. That’s not a particularly sound approach. The two situations are fundamentally different - one relied heavily on contested intelligence assessments, while the other is based on measured results from international nuclear inspections.

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Both Trump and Netanyahu spoke to how decimated the Iran nuclear program was just this past June.

Trump and Netanyahu did both claimthat the Iran Nuclear programme was “decimated”, but there are several reasons that may not reflect the full reality.

Destroying facilities does not remove the scientists, engineers, and technical knowledge behind the programme. Iran had already produced uranium enriched to around 60% U-235, and enriched material cannot simply be “unlearned” or easily eliminated if it has been dispersed or hidden.

Some key sites, such as Fordow, were built deep underground specifically to survive airstrikes, and enrichment infrastructure like centrifuges can be rebuilt relatively quickly compared to creating an entire nuclear programme from scratch. So even if facilities were damaged, the real question is whether the programme was truly destroyed or merely set back for a period of time.

5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

IIRC Curtis Le May wanted to do that to Hanoi. How did that end?

Very different times and circumstances. The bombing set North Vietnam back decades in its industrial development. North Vietnam was seeking to Conquer South Vietnam, not invade the USA. The North Vietnamese were a culture able to sustain hardship and live on a handful of rice and fried rat. The Iranians are an urban population used to the luxuries of life like electricity, sewage, running water. 1/3 of the population lives in just 8 cities. Maybe the rural population can carry on, but more than 1/2 the population is like you and me and won't accept the loss of comfort. Times are very different. Even the Ayotollahs like their mobile phones.

8 hours ago, JAG said:

I wondered how long it would be before "bombing back to the stone age" cropped up!

Ironic really, given the United States current signature, almost neanderthal, approach to international affairs!

No. That was the Iranians and their backing of the Houthis, who changed parts of Yemen into a wasteland with their indiscriminate artillery barrages, helicopter dropped barrel bombs, and civilian targeted aerial bombings.

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

Very different times and circumstances. The bombing set North Vietnam back decades in its industrial development. North Vietnam was seeking to Conquer South Vietnam, not invade the USA. The North Vietnamese were a culture able to sustain hardship and live on a handful of rice and fried rat. The Iranians are an urban population used to the luxuries of life like electricity, sewage, running water. 1/3 of the population lives in just 8 cities. Maybe the rural population can carry on, but more than 1/2 the population is like you and me and won't accept the loss of comfort. Times are very different. Even the Ayotollahs like their mobile phones.

IIRC Vietnam almost bankrupted the US, and caused Nixon to go off the gold standard.

A bombing campaign costing $800 million every day. A $38 trillion debt. a $15 hike in oil per barrel.

You're right, times are different. This war is about look over there, anywhere but the Epstein files.

44 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

IIRC Vietnam almost bankrupted the US, and caused Nixon to go off the gold standard.

A bombing campaign costing $800 million every day. A $38 trillion debt. a $15 hike in oil per barrel.

You're right, times are different. This war is about look over there, anywhere but the Epstein files.

And yet the USA has prospered, Fancy that.

Cute revisionist history intended to create a causative link when there was none. The USA was the last country to have moved away from the gold standard. Most of the world had dropped the Gold standard after the Great Depression. It's return after WWII was only intended to be temporary.

The action against Iran has been planned for 20 years+. Efforts had been made to avoid a conflict, but Iran was intent on continuing its evil ways.

56 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

IIRC Vietnam almost bankrupted the US, and caused Nixon to go off the gold standard.

A bombing campaign costing $800 million every day. A $38 trillion debt. a $15 hike in oil per barrel.

You're right, times are different. This war is about look over there, anywhere but the Epstein files.

That war lasted 2 decades. This 7 months or less. Nasdaq was up a minute ago. You lefties are wrong daily and you live in a 8,000 baht room. If you were so smart you wouldnt do that.