If (if) this destroyed a nuclear weapons program, that is good for the world.
No one can predict the downstream consequences of today, but I fail to see an argument for why the world benefits from another nation getting the bomb.
I think the attacks aren't just about a nuclear weapons program. First, the program, according to US intelligence, does not exist. I'm inclined to believe them. [1] Second, unrelated infrastructure has been attacked, including energy infrastructure, hospitals, and state media.
All of that points not to the destruction of a nuclear weapons program, but of a country. The Israeli government claims to want regime change now... but that claim only came some time after the attacks started and there's no reason in that case to bomb hospitals. The Israeli government claimed the hospitals were "hiding" missle sites, but haven't presented any evidence of that, and have used that excuse many times before now, and were clearly lying.
Ah, plus the countries involved are engaged in a separate act of bloodlust at the moment. Which doesn't directly mean that the attacks against Iran are the same, but it certainly colors the picture.
Why do you take her testimony as gospel? As I understand it, the Israelis have infiltrated Iranian chain of command far more thoroughly than the US has. Maybe she didn't have all the info the Israelis had at the time? Maybe new information came to light? Maybe it was a diplomatic response attempting to get them to the bargaining table? Lots of possibilities here other than "the DNI testimony is was and will always be true"
I find it fairly suspicious to hear "Iran doesn't have a nuke program. Yes, they're enriching uranium to a point where it's only use is a nuclear weapon, but they have no plans to build a nuclear weapon"
The only nation in the middle east with a nuclear weapons program is Israel. Why not destroy that one? It's objectively more of a threat to the region than Iran's.
> only nation in the middle east with a nuclear weapons program is Israel. Why not destroy that one?
Put simply: they have it.
One of the unfair truths of nuclear geopolitics is the power asymmetry between nuclear and non-nuclear states. (And the collective interest of the former in nuclear NIMBYism.)
People have made the point that the world, relative to the time before the bomb, is a more peaceful place. So if a few countries having the bomb makes it peaceful, maybe more bombs make it more peaceful?
If (if) this destroyed a nuclear weapons program, that is good for the world.
No one can predict the downstream consequences of today, but I fail to see an argument for why the world benefits from another nation getting the bomb.