Here’s another question that I have. Given the similarities in strategy which allowed both Unraine and Israel to smuggle drones on to the territory of Russian and Iran respectively, how likely is it that these strategies were developed during surreptitious discussions between Ukraine and Israel or is the similarity in strategy merely a coincidence?
As I said to Mitchell, below, the idea of doing that has been around for a while. I agree, though, that it's striking to see it deployed so successfully twice in the same month, and will certainly give rise to suspicion that there was some coordination. But military people have been thinking about (and worried about) scenarios like these for a while.
> Mossad agents set up a drone base on Iranian soil near Tehran.
The Brazilian journalist Pepe Escobar, who is a propagandist for multipolarity, but whose work for that reason covers topics and opinions that western media overlooks, has been saying for the past week that Russian intelligence is busy trying to establish exactly what kind of external assistance Ukraine received in carrying out Operation Spider Web. This is so they can punish the responsible parties.
If I was one of those Russian analysts, and I heard that this tactic of pre-positioning drones inside the enemy nation had also been used by Israel in the same time period, I would consider that an enormous clue. I would probably say, this tactic was hatched in America, during Biden's term, and deployed against both Russia and Iran.
> in March, Tulsi Gabbard said that the intel community had concluded that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear-weapons program that he suspended in 2003.”
All that can be technically true, while Iran also hastens to reach the Japanese level of being "one screwdriver's turn" away from being able to build a nuke.
Tulsi was in Hiroshima this week, and released a video on her personal X account, rehearsing the consequences of nuclear war and saying that in the world, there are political elites who are provoking nuclear-armed powers because they think they are secure in their own bunkers. I had a short debate with a Ukrainian-American who assumed she was doing a Solovyov and talking about Europeans pushing for war with Russia. I said, she's a Hindu and India recently went to war because of a Pakistani provocation; maybe the Trump administration is planning a general nuclear disarmament initiative? But I think we now know what was foremost in her mind.
> Drew Pavlou
You should tune in to some of his Youtube livestreams, you'd probably enjoy them.
Escobar is a "propagandist for multipolarity?" He's more like an "unreconstructed tankie." But I agree he's interesting to read. The tactic of prepositioning drones like that has been discussed in open sources for years. It's not that it's an innovative idea; it's just that no one had actually pulled it off before. Yes, I like Drew's Twitter feed, I'd probably like his YouTube channel.
BTW that Times of Israel block is against VPNs, in order to stop DDoS cyber attacks by Iran and its friends. Happened to me too. If you turn off your VPN it goes away.
“The consensus, to the extent there was one, was that to be sure of destroying those sites, you’d have to repeatedly drop our heaviest bunker-busters on them—over and over.” - maybe we start accepting that progressive experts trained at Ivy League schools by other progressives with little to no military expertise and a lot of ossified groupthink aren’t all that expert. Israel has continuously defied the predictions of ‘experts’ about Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and Iran.
It seems that all these experts, especially the ones cherry-picked by progressive media like the NYT, had a political narrative to sell - that Iran cannot defeated by military means, that it must be appeased with billions of dollars, and that Israel should be thrown under the bus in a new Middle East where the US makes allies of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies. This is the ‘expert opinion’ at the core of the useless, obsequious Obama and Biden administrations foreign policy that was hostile to US allies and deeply appeasing of Iran. Same alleged experts like Phil Gordon were employed by the Harris campaign, dispensing with the same ignorant, maliciously anti-Israel and anti-US advice.
These people made the US seem like a fickle, weak, and stupid ally to moderate middle eastern countries. It emboldened Iran to more belligerence - terrorism, civil wars, outright assaults on a democratic ally. It’s more proof that progressive are know-nothing losers who should be kept far away from any presidential administration and Congressional staff.
The laws of physics aren't open to much debate. We can make very reliable, non-subjective assessments of the amount of tonnage you need to drop on a mountain to destroy what's under it. So it surprised me that I couldn't nail down a firm answer to that question. I wasn't asking NYT journalists; I was asking people I knew in the military.
That’s based on the assumption that it requires going through the hill, rather than destroying the power, ventilation and entrances. A tomb doesn’t make anything.
(1) Is it possible that bombing Fordow’s electrical grid and its passageways for egress and ingress will be enough to render the facility inoperable for an extended period of time?
(2) Even without the requisite bunker busters, is it possible that by continuously bombing the site, Israel could cause a radiation release in the facility that might render it very difficult for the Iranians to use?
(3) Given the fact that Iran’s only potential delivery system for nuclear weapons is its ballistic missile fleet, by destroying Iran’s ability to build and deploy these missiles, might Israel render an Iranian nuclear weapon largely irrelevant?
I asked Perplexity, “Could Israel’s attack on Fordo cause radiation to leak into the facility thus making it unusable even if it can't be totally destroyed because of Israel’s lack of the necessary ordinance?”
Here was its response,
“Could the Attack Cause a Radiation Leak?
• Nature of the Facility: Fordo is designed for uranium enrichment, housing thousands of centrifuges that enrich uranium gas, often to levels like 60% (close to weapons-grade). Unlike a nuclear reactor, enrichment facilities don’t involve sustained nuclear fission, which significantly reduces the risk of catastrophic radiation release. However, enriched uranium and associated chemicals are present, and damage to the facility could lead to localized radiological or chemical contamination.
• Mechanism of Leak: Experts note that striking an enrichment facility like Fordo with conventional weapons could damage centrifuges or storage areas, potentially releasing uranium dust or hexafluoride gas. Uranium is a heavy metal, chemically toxic like lead, and mildly radioactive. A localized dispersal of radioactive material inside the facility is possible if centrifuges or uranium storage are hit, but it’s unlikely to cause widespread environmental contamination due to the facility’s underground structure and the nature of uranium.
• IAEA Assessment: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), led by Rafael Grossi, reported on June 13, 2025, that Iranian authorities confirmed no elevated radiation levels at Fordo following the reported strikes. This suggests that any damage did not result in significant radiological release at the time. However, Grossi noted that military activity occurred around Fordo, and detailed information on damage was limited.
Could a Radiation Leak Render Fordo Unusable?
• Localized Contamination: If a strike caused a radiation leak inside Fordo, it could contaminate the facility’s internal environment, particularly the clean rooms where centrifuges operate. Centrifuges require precise, sterile conditions, and contamination with radioactive dust or chemicals could disrupt operations. Cleaning such contamination would be complex and time-consuming, potentially rendering parts of the facility temporarily unusable.
• Operational Impact: Damage to power supplies or auxiliary systems, as seen in the Natanz attack, could halt centrifuge operations without directly causing a radiation leak. Centrifuges are sensitive to vibrations and power disruptions, which can break delicate components. If Fordo’s power infrastructure was targeted, as some analysts suggest Israel might do, it could disable enrichment without significant radiological consequences.
• Long-Term Usability: Even if a leak occurred, experts like David Albright suggest that the amount of radiation from an enrichment facility is unlikely to pose a long-term regional risk. Contamination would likely be manageable with protective measures, meaning the facility could eventually be decontaminated and restored, though this could take months or years depending on the extent of damage.
There's both kə·lā·ḇî (like a lioness) and wə·ḵa·’ă·rî (and like a lion) in Num 23:24.
"Look, a people like a lioness rises and like a lion lifts itself up, nor shall it lie down until it devours the prey and the blood of the slain [it] drinks."
Obviously, interlinear scripture – with translation side-by-side to the original – depends on an accurate side-by-side translation for those who can't read the original. Still, a pretty handy setup for those of us who can't.
You've made me curious about this ... I'm unable to read any of these languages, and my knowledge of this passage is totally superficial. What else do you notice about this allusion that might be relevant to understanding 1) how Israel sees this operation; 2) how it might be interpreted by Christians?
When I heard "rising lion", my first thought was "the Lion of Judah" – which Christians interpret as a name for Christ apocalyptically revealed in the second coming. But it's also just a symbol of Israel's authority and might more generally.
Reading all of Numbers 23, Balaam gives two prophecies in it to Balak, the Midianite* king of Moab, who hires Balaam to curse Israel – only Balaam can't, and blesses Israel instead. The blessings are Messianic, and are framed by Balaam's comment that, while humans lie, God does not, a comment applicable to dissembling over how far along Iran's nuclear weapons program really was.
For Muslims, I can't make a better guess than simply googling it. "Lion of God" is an Islamic title for Ali ibn Abi Talib and the warrior Hamza ibn Abdul-Muttalib.
* I don't remember who Balak is off the top of my head, much less that he's a Midianite, but I can look it up:
"Politics makes strange bedfellows, so although natural enemies, Moab and Midian banded together and appointed a Midianite, Balak son of Zippor, as king over them. Balak recognized that the power of the Jews was supernatural, so he too sought a way of undermining them supernaturally. Together with the elders of Midian, he hatched a plan to hire Balaam—a well known and powerful sorcerer and prophet—to curse the Jews. Since the Jews’ strength lay in their mouths, i.e., in prayer, he planned to defeat them with a stronger 'mouth'—Balaam’s curse."
Does Zippor play any role beyond being Balak's father? I seem to recall having read or thought about him before, but for the life of me I can't remember where or why. https://biblehub.com/topical/z/zippor.htm says he only shows up here, in Numbers, and isn't otherwise especially significant. Am I confusing him with someone else?
First—I don’t think you should conclude that your analysis was 100% wrong. It’s too soon to say. It’s possible that Netanyahu did the strike without Trump’s full knowledge, knowing the U.S. military would help where it could whether Trump greenlighted or not. Besides, the pro-Israel wing of the party is pretty dominant, which N well knows. Trump has been giving N a bit of a cold shoulder, and it may well turn out that N was saying, “Hey, I’m still here,” and ordered the strike. If that’s the case, it would help explain the mixed messaging coming out of the White House, where Trump really didn’t know for certain a strike was coming, while others did and just assumed Trump was all in.
Second—all the enhanced enrichment aside, Iran still has to know how to load it onto a missile, shoot the missile, and get it to explode. I’d be interested to know if any bomb experts might weigh in on this?
From what I understand (but I am *not* an authority): Iran conducted implosion tests in the early 2000s, including cold tests and neutron initiator experiment, indicating it has, or had, substantial know-how on bomb design. (That know-how may have perished earlier today.) Without an underground nuclear test, operational reliability and miniaturization would be unproven. A crude ballistic-missile-capable device would probably have taken between 6 to 18 months, depending on foreign assistance or accelerated testing. As for delivery, ABMs like Shahab‑3 and Sejjil are capable of reaching Israel. There's no evidence (that I know of) that they had warhead integration or successful re‑entry tests. So a reliable missile-deliverable warhead could have been 12–24 months away, assuming no foreign aid. (I'm not sure what tense to write in. This was true as of yesterday--this comes from my notes.)
You didn't mention a second-strike capability, but that's also important. They don't have SSBNs, hardened silo networks, or advanced mobile launchers. A credible survivable nuclear arsenal—with assured second-strike capacity—remained 3–5+ years off, likely even longer.
Here’s another question that I have. Given the similarities in strategy which allowed both Unraine and Israel to smuggle drones on to the territory of Russian and Iran respectively, how likely is it that these strategies were developed during surreptitious discussions between Ukraine and Israel or is the similarity in strategy merely a coincidence?
As I said to Mitchell, below, the idea of doing that has been around for a while. I agree, though, that it's striking to see it deployed so successfully twice in the same month, and will certainly give rise to suspicion that there was some coordination. But military people have been thinking about (and worried about) scenarios like these for a while.
> Mossad agents set up a drone base on Iranian soil near Tehran.
The Brazilian journalist Pepe Escobar, who is a propagandist for multipolarity, but whose work for that reason covers topics and opinions that western media overlooks, has been saying for the past week that Russian intelligence is busy trying to establish exactly what kind of external assistance Ukraine received in carrying out Operation Spider Web. This is so they can punish the responsible parties.
If I was one of those Russian analysts, and I heard that this tactic of pre-positioning drones inside the enemy nation had also been used by Israel in the same time period, I would consider that an enormous clue. I would probably say, this tactic was hatched in America, during Biden's term, and deployed against both Russia and Iran.
> in March, Tulsi Gabbard said that the intel community had concluded that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear-weapons program that he suspended in 2003.”
All that can be technically true, while Iran also hastens to reach the Japanese level of being "one screwdriver's turn" away from being able to build a nuke.
Tulsi was in Hiroshima this week, and released a video on her personal X account, rehearsing the consequences of nuclear war and saying that in the world, there are political elites who are provoking nuclear-armed powers because they think they are secure in their own bunkers. I had a short debate with a Ukrainian-American who assumed she was doing a Solovyov and talking about Europeans pushing for war with Russia. I said, she's a Hindu and India recently went to war because of a Pakistani provocation; maybe the Trump administration is planning a general nuclear disarmament initiative? But I think we now know what was foremost in her mind.
> Drew Pavlou
You should tune in to some of his Youtube livestreams, you'd probably enjoy them.
Escobar is a "propagandist for multipolarity?" He's more like an "unreconstructed tankie." But I agree he's interesting to read. The tactic of prepositioning drones like that has been discussed in open sources for years. It's not that it's an innovative idea; it's just that no one had actually pulled it off before. Yes, I like Drew's Twitter feed, I'd probably like his YouTube channel.
BTW that Times of Israel block is against VPNs, in order to stop DDoS cyber attacks by Iran and its friends. Happened to me too. If you turn off your VPN it goes away.
I wasn't using a VPN!
“The consensus, to the extent there was one, was that to be sure of destroying those sites, you’d have to repeatedly drop our heaviest bunker-busters on them—over and over.” - maybe we start accepting that progressive experts trained at Ivy League schools by other progressives with little to no military expertise and a lot of ossified groupthink aren’t all that expert. Israel has continuously defied the predictions of ‘experts’ about Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and Iran.
It seems that all these experts, especially the ones cherry-picked by progressive media like the NYT, had a political narrative to sell - that Iran cannot defeated by military means, that it must be appeased with billions of dollars, and that Israel should be thrown under the bus in a new Middle East where the US makes allies of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies. This is the ‘expert opinion’ at the core of the useless, obsequious Obama and Biden administrations foreign policy that was hostile to US allies and deeply appeasing of Iran. Same alleged experts like Phil Gordon were employed by the Harris campaign, dispensing with the same ignorant, maliciously anti-Israel and anti-US advice.
These people made the US seem like a fickle, weak, and stupid ally to moderate middle eastern countries. It emboldened Iran to more belligerence - terrorism, civil wars, outright assaults on a democratic ally. It’s more proof that progressive are know-nothing losers who should be kept far away from any presidential administration and Congressional staff.
The laws of physics aren't open to much debate. We can make very reliable, non-subjective assessments of the amount of tonnage you need to drop on a mountain to destroy what's under it. So it surprised me that I couldn't nail down a firm answer to that question. I wasn't asking NYT journalists; I was asking people I knew in the military.
That’s based on the assumption that it requires going through the hill, rather than destroying the power, ventilation and entrances. A tomb doesn’t make anything.
Here’s what I have been wondering:
(1) Is it possible that bombing Fordow’s electrical grid and its passageways for egress and ingress will be enough to render the facility inoperable for an extended period of time?
(2) Even without the requisite bunker busters, is it possible that by continuously bombing the site, Israel could cause a radiation release in the facility that might render it very difficult for the Iranians to use?
(3) Given the fact that Iran’s only potential delivery system for nuclear weapons is its ballistic missile fleet, by destroying Iran’s ability to build and deploy these missiles, might Israel render an Iranian nuclear weapon largely irrelevant?
We're all eager for the answers to these questions. So far I haven't seen a good analysis. I'll post it when I do.
I asked Perplexity, “Could Israel’s attack on Fordo cause radiation to leak into the facility thus making it unusable even if it can't be totally destroyed because of Israel’s lack of the necessary ordinance?”
Here was its response,
“Could the Attack Cause a Radiation Leak?
• Nature of the Facility: Fordo is designed for uranium enrichment, housing thousands of centrifuges that enrich uranium gas, often to levels like 60% (close to weapons-grade). Unlike a nuclear reactor, enrichment facilities don’t involve sustained nuclear fission, which significantly reduces the risk of catastrophic radiation release. However, enriched uranium and associated chemicals are present, and damage to the facility could lead to localized radiological or chemical contamination.
• Mechanism of Leak: Experts note that striking an enrichment facility like Fordo with conventional weapons could damage centrifuges or storage areas, potentially releasing uranium dust or hexafluoride gas. Uranium is a heavy metal, chemically toxic like lead, and mildly radioactive. A localized dispersal of radioactive material inside the facility is possible if centrifuges or uranium storage are hit, but it’s unlikely to cause widespread environmental contamination due to the facility’s underground structure and the nature of uranium.
• IAEA Assessment: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), led by Rafael Grossi, reported on June 13, 2025, that Iranian authorities confirmed no elevated radiation levels at Fordo following the reported strikes. This suggests that any damage did not result in significant radiological release at the time. However, Grossi noted that military activity occurred around Fordo, and detailed information on damage was limited.
Could a Radiation Leak Render Fordo Unusable?
• Localized Contamination: If a strike caused a radiation leak inside Fordo, it could contaminate the facility’s internal environment, particularly the clean rooms where centrifuges operate. Centrifuges require precise, sterile conditions, and contamination with radioactive dust or chemicals could disrupt operations. Cleaning such contamination would be complex and time-consuming, potentially rendering parts of the facility temporarily unusable.
• Operational Impact: Damage to power supplies or auxiliary systems, as seen in the Natanz attack, could halt centrifuge operations without directly causing a radiation leak. Centrifuges are sensitive to vibrations and power disruptions, which can break delicate components. If Fordo’s power infrastructure was targeted, as some analysts suggest Israel might do, it could disable enrichment without significant radiological consequences.
• Long-Term Usability: Even if a leak occurred, experts like David Albright suggest that the amount of radiation from an enrichment facility is unlikely to pose a long-term regional risk. Contamination would likely be manageable with protective measures, meaning the facility could eventually be decontaminated and restored, though this could take months or years depending on the extent of damage.
Lion or lioness? Both! Interlinears to the rescue –
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/numbers/23.htm
There's both kə·lā·ḇî (like a lioness) and wə·ḵa·’ă·rî (and like a lion) in Num 23:24.
"Look, a people like a lioness rises and like a lion lifts itself up, nor shall it lie down until it devours the prey and the blood of the slain [it] drinks."
Obviously, interlinear scripture – with translation side-by-side to the original – depends on an accurate side-by-side translation for those who can't read the original. Still, a pretty handy setup for those of us who can't.
Huh. That's confusing. Are two lions involved? Or is it the same lion?
I'd guess it's an example of synonymous parallelism, common in biblical poetry.
Like "The infant will play near the cobra’s den, and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest."
You've made me curious about this ... I'm unable to read any of these languages, and my knowledge of this passage is totally superficial. What else do you notice about this allusion that might be relevant to understanding 1) how Israel sees this operation; 2) how it might be interpreted by Christians?
(Or Muslims, for that matter?)
When I heard "rising lion", my first thought was "the Lion of Judah" – which Christians interpret as a name for Christ apocalyptically revealed in the second coming. But it's also just a symbol of Israel's authority and might more generally.
Reading all of Numbers 23, Balaam gives two prophecies in it to Balak, the Midianite* king of Moab, who hires Balaam to curse Israel – only Balaam can't, and blesses Israel instead. The blessings are Messianic, and are framed by Balaam's comment that, while humans lie, God does not, a comment applicable to dissembling over how far along Iran's nuclear weapons program really was.
For Muslims, I can't make a better guess than simply googling it. "Lion of God" is an Islamic title for Ali ibn Abi Talib and the warrior Hamza ibn Abdul-Muttalib.
* I don't remember who Balak is off the top of my head, much less that he's a Midianite, but I can look it up:
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3715894/jewish/Balaam-and-Balak-The-Full-Story
"Politics makes strange bedfellows, so although natural enemies, Moab and Midian banded together and appointed a Midianite, Balak son of Zippor, as king over them. Balak recognized that the power of the Jews was supernatural, so he too sought a way of undermining them supernaturally. Together with the elders of Midian, he hatched a plan to hire Balaam—a well known and powerful sorcerer and prophet—to curse the Jews. Since the Jews’ strength lay in their mouths, i.e., in prayer, he planned to defeat them with a stronger 'mouth'—Balaam’s curse."
Does Zippor play any role beyond being Balak's father? I seem to recall having read or thought about him before, but for the life of me I can't remember where or why. https://biblehub.com/topical/z/zippor.htm says he only shows up here, in Numbers, and isn't otherwise especially significant. Am I confusing him with someone else?
It's an excellent choice of names for this operation, though. Good and sinister.
First—I don’t think you should conclude that your analysis was 100% wrong. It’s too soon to say. It’s possible that Netanyahu did the strike without Trump’s full knowledge, knowing the U.S. military would help where it could whether Trump greenlighted or not. Besides, the pro-Israel wing of the party is pretty dominant, which N well knows. Trump has been giving N a bit of a cold shoulder, and it may well turn out that N was saying, “Hey, I’m still here,” and ordered the strike. If that’s the case, it would help explain the mixed messaging coming out of the White House, where Trump really didn’t know for certain a strike was coming, while others did and just assumed Trump was all in.
Second—all the enhanced enrichment aside, Iran still has to know how to load it onto a missile, shoot the missile, and get it to explode. I’d be interested to know if any bomb experts might weigh in on this?
From what I understand (but I am *not* an authority): Iran conducted implosion tests in the early 2000s, including cold tests and neutron initiator experiment, indicating it has, or had, substantial know-how on bomb design. (That know-how may have perished earlier today.) Without an underground nuclear test, operational reliability and miniaturization would be unproven. A crude ballistic-missile-capable device would probably have taken between 6 to 18 months, depending on foreign assistance or accelerated testing. As for delivery, ABMs like Shahab‑3 and Sejjil are capable of reaching Israel. There's no evidence (that I know of) that they had warhead integration or successful re‑entry tests. So a reliable missile-deliverable warhead could have been 12–24 months away, assuming no foreign aid. (I'm not sure what tense to write in. This was true as of yesterday--this comes from my notes.)
You didn't mention a second-strike capability, but that's also important. They don't have SSBNs, hardened silo networks, or advanced mobile launchers. A credible survivable nuclear arsenal—with assured second-strike capacity—remained 3–5+ years off, likely even longer.