6 ms·

Maybe they wouldn’t have done it had the US not bailed out on the Iran nuclear deal.

dismalpedigree 4y ago
You of course are referring to the deal that had the US air freight $400m in the middle of the night to close the deal, only for the Iranians to completely ignore the deal anyway?
- misja111 4y ago
  Odd that this is downvoted. The comment is true: https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-i...
  - recuter 4y ago
    These discussions are astroturfed.
    - uoaei 4y ago
      From my experience, there's quite a heavy level of organic criticism for how Iran has been treated in general. We can trust you're a "real person" just as much as you, us. Diverting critiques on the basis of "astroturfing" is so HRC '16.
      - recuter 4y ago
        Poor Ayatollahs. They surely deserve to be treated better. :( And yet regardless of how poorly it was treated or "what is fair", which is all the whining is ever about, nobody can remotely come up with a reason for why Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a positive development for anybody. This is a dangerous game, regardless of your politics. Astroturfing does not necessarily imply bots, comrade.
        unmole 4y ago
        > why Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a positive development for anybody. Nuclear weapons deter invasions.
        recuter 4y ago
        Iran itself is an aggressive and expanding regional power. What is to deter Iran itself from invading others? Oh that's right, more nuclear weapons. So next Saudi Arabia will absolutely scramble to get one. 'etc.
        u801e 4y ago
        > nobody can remotely come up with a reason for why Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a positive development for anybody. Whether it's a positive or negative development really doesn't matter. What matters is what actually happens once that occurs. When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region. Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, etc. didn't start their own nuclear programs. So in the event Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's likely nothing of consequence will happen.
        recuter 4y ago
        > When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region.. therefore... So in the event Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's likely nothing of consequence will happen. Whether the domino theory is at play depends on the balance of power and specifics of each geopolitical region. It simply doesn't follow that because India-Pakistan was contained such a thing won't happen in the Middle East. In fact you'd notice that is a pair. The counterparty to Iran having a nuke would be Saudi Arabia having a nuke, an extremely likely outcome.
        u801e 4y ago
        India conducted their first nuclear test in 1974. Pakistan didn't do the same until 1998. > In fact you'd notice that is a pair. The counterparty to Iran having a nuke would be Saudi Arabia having a nuke, an extremely likely outcome. Israel already has them and has had them for some time. Just like India did before Pakistan developed and tested them.
  - Convolutional 4y ago
    That link mentions something not mentioned here - that the Iranians were sent their own money.
  - jhp123 4y ago
    the comment also mentions that the Iranians ignored the deal, which is false https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/31/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-un https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/31/iran-nuclear-d...
- Convolutional 4y ago
  The reader might question why the poster neglected to mention to them, that the $400 million transferred was Iranian money.
recuter 4y ago
Maybe. Most probably they would have cheated. It is moot either way. There is no such thing as "fair" in geopolitics. I don't see how a sane person thinks Iran getting the bomb is a good development or viable.
- throwaway4good 4y ago
  I agree in the sense that it comes down to a decision the US has to make on whether to invade Iran or not. Just like with Iraq; wmd’s, weapons inspectors etc. are ultimately just a side show.
  - recuter 4y ago
    Nope, unlike Iraq and wmd's you have confirmation from multiple third parties and countries. IAEA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Ag...), France, Germany, UK, all are sounding the alarm.
    - unmole 4y ago
      > confirmation from multiple third parties and countries So, exactly the same as Iraq?
      - recuter 4y ago
        Nope, not remotely the same as Iraq. I like how some whataboutists here are arguing that Iran was treated poorly and therefore "deserves a nuclear weapon" and at the same time that it is all a conspiracy and they aren't developing one - despite overwhelming evidence from none US sources.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - psychphysic 4y ago
    Crazy that many of the same people condemning Russia invading Ukraine for "security". Would want to invade countries on the other side of the globe for "security". Super powers gonna super power and the rest of have to pretend to care.

You of course are referring to the deal that had the US air freight $400m in the middle of the night to close the deal, only for the Iranians to completely ignore the deal anyway?

misja111 4y ago
Odd that this is downvoted. The comment is true: https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-i...
- recuter 4y ago
  These discussions are astroturfed.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    From my experience, there's quite a heavy level of organic criticism for how Iran has been treated in general. We can trust you're a "real person" just as much as you, us. Diverting critiques on the basis of "astroturfing" is so HRC '16.
    - recuter 4y ago
      Poor Ayatollahs. They surely deserve to be treated better. :( And yet regardless of how poorly it was treated or "what is fair", which is all the whining is ever about, nobody can remotely come up with a reason for why Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a positive development for anybody. This is a dangerous game, regardless of your politics. Astroturfing does not necessarily imply bots, comrade.
      - unmole 4y ago
        > why Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a positive development for anybody. Nuclear weapons deter invasions.
        recuter 4y ago
        Iran itself is an aggressive and expanding regional power. What is to deter Iran itself from invading others? Oh that's right, more nuclear weapons. So next Saudi Arabia will absolutely scramble to get one. 'etc.
      - u801e 4y ago
        > nobody can remotely come up with a reason for why Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a positive development for anybody. Whether it's a positive or negative development really doesn't matter. What matters is what actually happens once that occurs. When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region. Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, etc. didn't start their own nuclear programs. So in the event Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's likely nothing of consequence will happen.
        recuter 4y ago
        > When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region.. therefore... So in the event Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's likely nothing of consequence will happen. Whether the domino theory is at play depends on the balance of power and specifics of each geopolitical region. It simply doesn't follow that because India-Pakistan was contained such a thing won't happen in the Middle East. In fact you'd notice that is a pair. The counterparty to Iran having a nuke would be Saudi Arabia having a nuke, an extremely likely outcome.
        u801e 4y ago
        India conducted their first nuclear test in 1974. Pakistan didn't do the same until 1998. > In fact you'd notice that is a pair. The counterparty to Iran having a nuke would be Saudi Arabia having a nuke, an extremely likely outcome. Israel already has them and has had them for some time. Just like India did before Pakistan developed and tested them.
- Convolutional 4y ago
  That link mentions something not mentioned here - that the Iranians were sent their own money.
- jhp123 4y ago
  the comment also mentions that the Iranians ignored the deal, which is false https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/31/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-un https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/31/iran-nuclear-d...
Convolutional 4y ago
The reader might question why the poster neglected to mention to them, that the $400 million transferred was Iranian money.

recuter 4y ago

Maybe. Most probably they would have cheated. It is moot either way. There is no such thing as "fair" in geopolitics. I don't see how a sane person thinks Iran getting the bomb is a good development or viable.

throwaway4good 4y ago
I agree in the sense that it comes down to a decision the US has to make on whether to invade Iran or not. Just like with Iraq; wmd’s, weapons inspectors etc. are ultimately just a side show.
- recuter 4y ago
  Nope, unlike Iraq and wmd's you have confirmation from multiple third parties and countries. IAEA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Ag...), France, Germany, UK, all are sounding the alarm.
  - unmole 4y ago
    > confirmation from multiple third parties and countries So, exactly the same as Iraq?
    - recuter 4y ago
      Nope, not remotely the same as Iraq. I like how some whataboutists here are arguing that Iran was treated poorly and therefore "deserves a nuclear weapon" and at the same time that it is all a conspiracy and they aren't developing one - despite overwhelming evidence from none US sources.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- psychphysic 4y ago
  Crazy that many of the same people condemning Russia invading Ukraine for "security". Would want to invade countries on the other side of the globe for "security". Super powers gonna super power and the rest of have to pretend to care.