Going to read a bit more of the Peter Wildeford post
Post from 14th June 2025: “The Fordow Paradox: Where do Iran and Israel go from here?”
Predictions
US B-2 bombers are nuke-first bombers - 20%
I know nuclear bombers are part of the nuclear triad, but you’d assume that B-2s would carry other types of bombs as a priority, right?
❌ nice, I was right!
“The B-2 has in fact been used only in conventional combat missions so far (Kosovo 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Libya 2011, Syria 2017). Its nuclear role is primarily deterrent, not a designated “first-strike-only” platform.”
Saudi Arabia is the #1 exporter of oil in the middle east - 80%
✅
This NASDAQ article says they’re number 2, behind America at number 1, which is surprising to me!!
The answer to the heading “what does Iran want” (by pursuing nuclear) will be “leverage” - 70%
Seems really obvious, maybe too obvious, hence only 70%
✅
“The Iranian regime sees nuclear capability as solving three existential threats simultaneously”
Squinted as I copy-pasted this so I wouldn’t see the answer, lol
Protection from America, Russia, Israel, other nuclear armed states
Leverage over non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS) in the middle east, e.g. Saudi Arabia
Ability to enter summits etc (this was kind of given away as he described what benefits North Korea got as a result of nukes)
“US MOPs” - the M stands for massive, and/or the P stands for penetration - 20%
✅ damn it literally is
“Massive Ordnance Penetrator” - I thought that was too dumb
Things I don’t know
Iron Dome vs David’s Sling vs Arrow systems
What leverage does Iran have?
If most of their air defences are destroyed, and they’ve depleted a lot of their weapons, & key military leaders have been killed
Can blockage that area in the Gulf of _ at their south border, which is where a large amount of oil infrastructure sits (pretty sure it connects to other countries to, like probably the UAE and Saudi Arabia)
“Getting nuclear weapons → internal dissent loses steam when opposition leaders know toppling the government might mean losing the country’s nuclear umbrella against Israel and the US.”
I don’t get this - couldn’t opposition leaders keep access to the nuclear weapons?
I guess perhaps the argument is that total regime change = loss of expertise, a period where the nukes aren’t operational because the apparatus is so complicated?