This is not a humanitarian or ethics question

From Israel's perspective nuclear weapons are a last resort

Correct.

Their leadership and military may be genocidal, but they still have a sense of self-preservation and act somewhat rationally

Genocide isn't perpetuated by rational thinkers, is not an act of self preservation, and does not protect the wellbeing of it's perpetrators. The absurdity of this cannot be understated.

I am not making a moral argument. I am stating Israel has shown the depravity to use tactics of absolute destruction and barbarity, an established doctrine promoting the use of nuclear arms if Israel were to take heavy damage, and the fact that Israel is taking significant damage as their defenses continue to weaken as additional fronts open. These are all key requirements for the use of nuclear arms by Israel, and they are increasingly being met. Suggesting the US is more likely to deploy nuclear weapons from their position of relative safety is just laughable.

So that's making a very critical assumption: that Israel's territory is being existentially threatened. Iran simply does not have the military capability to do that.

Israel already claims that every one of their neighbors is an existential threat to their existence. The truth of the matter is irrelevant, as it is Israel that decides whether or not to launch Israel's nukes. They do not have enough interceptors to indefinitely outlast Iran's missiles and drones. Their defenses are failing to prevent direct strikes on targets in Israel, which the Israeli population are largely unaccustomed to. It is unlikely that the idea of suffering a prolonged bombardment would be popular or deemed acceptable. Iran will be hesitant to negotiate, because US and Israel have a history of attacking during negotiations.

Israel's small size and geopolitical situation basically requires such deterrence against a neighbor who might decide to blitzkrieg into Tel Aviv. Iran simply does not possess that capability.

Last time I checked, there are many small countries without nukes that are doing just fine. For decades, Israel has launched attacks on their neighbors, all while vehemently claiming that they are actually the ones being unjustly persecuted.

There's very little a nuke would do that Israel can't do to Iran with conventional weapons. While there's a whole lot that nukes don't do to a prepared enemy with spread out military and command infrastructure.

Nobody is debating the tactical or strategic usefulness of a nuclear strike. Possession of nukes is strategic, but their use is not. Israel has already used the equivalent of 6 nuclear bombs on Gaza. They target schools, hospitals, cultural sites, journalists, first responders, and everything else which is supposedly held sacred. They have already displayed an appetite for complete destruction.

Using nuclear weapons as anything but a last resort is therefore an awful gamble

Using nuclear weapons on population centers (Samson Option) is always unacceptable.

Israel has already shown a willingness to commit the crimes we associate with the use of a nuclear warhead (and more), and their leadership has an ever worsening victim complex. It would be tragic, but not unsurprising, if Israel launched a nuclear attack against Iran after suffering heavy bombardment from their enemies.

Israel has already shown their willingness to flatten cities and a blatant disregard for civilian life. Their president and a large majority of citizens believe "there are no innocents in Gaza", and that every child born is "already a terrorist from the moment of his birth".

Israel would consider a launch far before the US ever would. The US can sail away to safety whenever they choose, but Israel cannot. In the event Israel suffers enough damage, the Samson Option would be considered.

What?

Anti-zionism isn't antisemitism.

We can't be giving the people what they want, now can we?

We say end the war

Yeah, but here's the thing... Dem leadership is not saying they want to end the war.

Thanks for reading the article.

There are journalists all over Iran reporting on the attacks there. It is Israel that continuously censors and denies access to journalists.

Who forgot?

1893 too...

Is there a time besides maybe the 2010s where people had more disposable income ?

Yeah, bud.

It was called 1940-2007.

Line go down, rent go up. What do?

This is just not true for many people. A home is an asset. When paying a mortgage, you build equity that can be recouped if you decide to sell, or which can be used as collateral for another loan. When renting, you are still paying a mortgage, except is the landlord's and you own nothing. Rent prices can also change at any time and by large amounts, forcing renters to move. The cost of owning a home is much more stable and predictable.

Homes are also typically bought with a loan and a relatively small down payment, making them a leveraged asset. Eg, if you put down 30k on a 300k house and prices increase 5%, the value of your home just went up 15k. If you instead just put 30k in stocks, you would need an increase of 50% to get the same result.

Regardless, when it comes to housing, your primary concern should always be stability and not "profitability".