10 ms·
[deleted - decided to stop asking questions]
by amazingamazing 1y ago
[deleted - decided to stop asking questions]
- jghn 1y agoI mean, we could have not torn up the JPCOA for starters
- awongh 1y agoThey are manufacturing consent by saying Iran was days away from having nuclear weapons.
- hackyhacky 1y agoThey have been saying that (at least) since 1995.
- archsurface 1y agoWell, it takes about 20 years. Throw in a virus, assassinations, inspections, ... sounds about right.
- YZF 1y agoIsrael has been talking about the threat for some time and Iran over time has broadened its nuclear program and has enriched more and more Uranium to higher and higher levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Secret_expansion_and_weaponization_efforts_(1990s%E2%80%932002) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Secret... Why does Iran need all this enriched Uranium? Why is it investing so much in this? Why does it invest so much in its ballistic missile program? Would Israel be a threat to Iran if Iran didn't continuously declare it wants to wipe Israel off the map and take all these actions to follow up on that? Israel is tiny. It can't afford the risk of a regime that openly declares it wants to wipe it off the map and has acted towards that goal to get nuclear missiles.
- awongh 1y agoOne of the problems is that we became the defenders of Israel. And it's a situation we created when we created a religious extremist government in Iran.
- YZF 1y agoThe US and Israel have a long standing partnership. During the cold war the USSR backed Syria and Egypt (E.g.) and the US backed Israel. That was not different than other places in the world where the US pushed back against soviet expansion. Unlike Europe though there was never a formal defense pact. Also unlike Europe there were actual wars with people getting killed. I'm not sure the US "created" the religious extremist government in Iran. It's a complicated story. But the Shah was hated and like other similar dictators to date the US was happy to support that regime and turn a blind eye to the atrocities against the Iranian citizenry. Just like it is happy to work with other dictatorial regimes today as long as their interests align. When the revolution happened the Ayatollah was already well positioned to take advantage of the situation. Many of the people who rose up were eventually lined up against the wall and executed, like tends to happen in these revolutions.
- awongh 1y agoIt can be both things that: - it's disgusting that the USA is always like, oops, my bad, we messed up when we helped you kill all those people, we were doing our best (sometimes in the case of Iraq going back and forth three times!) - now that we're here, not sure what else we can do (we shouldn't let Iran fund proxy wars and have nukes)
- YZF 1y agoThe US messed up a lot of things e.g. in the Americas. Before them the Europeans also messed plenty of stuff up. But the US has also at times been a positive force. I don't think the way to fix "messing up" that is to just disappear and step away. Like it or not, the US is the leader of the free world. Retreating means people like Putin and Xi and going to step into the vacuum. But I agree the US should act responsibly. I'm also unsure where the current path is leading. It is weird that you declare two weeks for negotiations and then you attack though I'm pretty sure the negotiations would have led nowhere.
- archsurface 1y agoFacilities deep in a mountain, no IAEA access, refusal to negotiate, October 7th, ... You'd have to be quite naive to think it's all above board. (Instead of under a mountain).
- sundaeofshock 1y agoI can understand the Iranian reluctance to negotiate with the US. Trump has demonstrated that he is particularly honorable.
- archsurface 1y agoThat would be pointlessly defeatist. Also, other parties are involved to bear witness.
- awongh 1y agoLet's be clear Iran is the bad guy. But so was Saddam Hussein and he didn't have the weapons they said he did. On Fox News they'll tell you nuclear war is imminent but they say that because they want to bomb, not because it's true or not. They're only justifying their actions, not reacting to a threat.
- archsurface 1y agoI don't watch Fox News. Blair and Bush lying about Iraq, doesn't mean Iran isn't working towards weapons. I'm all for prosecuting Blair and Bush, always have been. This is not a matter in which you can just sit back and say "well, hopefully it's all innocent". Iran had to be open - they were the opposite.
- arp242 1y ago> Blair and Bush lying about Iraq, doesn't mean Iran isn't working towards weapons You're correct. However, Netanyahu also claimed that Iran was behind the two assassination attempts on Trump during the campaign trail. A laughably transparent lie obviously designed to woo Trump. Then there's that this war is politically very convenient for him as it distracts from some Knesset political drama, increasing international criticism of the Gaza situation, and it obstructs Trump's attempts at a politician solution with Iran. I don't know if Iran has nuclear weapons. Clearly they've been playing with fire for a long time but that doesn't mean they actually have nuclear weapons. But I consider anything the Netanyahu government says as deeply and profoundly untrustworthy. So colour me highly sceptical on it all. Iraq was also not giving sufficient access to inspectors, which was one of the reasons people were convinced he did have WMDs. Things like "you can just sit back and say 'well, hopefully it's all innocent'" is pretty much what people were saying at the time as well. Wars have unpredictable outcomes, all of this may very well cause more problems than it solves.
- flyinglizard 1y agoWhat’s the OTHER justification for a hardened nuclear program and having a pile of enriched material that can only be used for weapons? This is the IAEA report [0], claiming enough material for 9 weapons. [0] https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Analysis_of_May_2025_IAEA_Iran_Verification_Report_FINAL.pdf https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Analy...
- cchance 1y agoLOL Daily Show had a show about it Netanyahu has been saying Iran will have nukes within weeks, since 2008
- awongh 1y agohttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/jlqXOwYfpdQ https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jlqXOwYfpdQ
- lwansbrough 1y agoWell let's not forget stuxnet... Iran hasn't been left uncontested. They have faced considerable setbacks along the way. They've been trying to develop [all of the things you need for nuclear weapons] for some time, and more recently had been accelerating those efforts.
- avoutos 1y agoNetanyahu may exaggerate the imminence of an Iranian nuke, but the reason Iran hasn't built a nuke is because Israel has been repeatedly setting Iran back in its progress over the years. https://apnews.com/article/israel-iran-timeline-tensions-conflict-66764c2843d62757d83e4a486946bcb8 https://apnews.com/article/israel-iran-timeline-tensions-con...
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoThe single biggest setback was the JCPOA or the "Iran nuclear deal," which Netanyahu pressured Trump to unilaterally renege on. Between this and Ukraine, the entire world knows now that even agreements with the previously highly-trusted counterparty of the USA won't keep you safe. Only nuclear weapons can keep you safe. Off to the races!
- yyyk 1y agoThe deal was on only for about 3 years. Iran has been enriching to some extent since 2009. I'd would think there was a lot more in setting it back than a failed deal.
- dardeaup 1y agoWho is 'they'? United States, Israel, media outlet?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y agoStay in the deal that brought their domestic uranium production to 0. This crisis is entirely Trump's fault for pulling out. https://www.statista.com/chart/23528/irans-stockpile-of--low-enriched-uranium/ https://www.statista.com/chart/23528/irans-stockpile-of--low...
- yyyk 1y agoThe limits were to sunset starting from 2026 and end by 2031. The deal was to end with Iran being allowed to enrich as much as they wanted to, just a step away from a bomb.
- defrost 1y agoEnrichment to levels suitable for domestic nuclear power (the goal, and follow on decoupling from Russia as the supplier and extractor of fuel for existing Iran nuclear power station) is a magnitude and more less time and effort than enrichment to levels suitable for weapons. Isotope separation by centrifuge as a physical process follows the laws of diminishing returns, getting rid of all the uranium variations save the rare target weight takes more and more time as percent purity increases. "Just a step away" was more a hard bridge to cross back when third party inspectors were at the enrichment centres and leaving locked and logged "long soak" spectrometer instruments behind. It's hard to enrich to greater levels without leaving a ratio fingerprint behind in the gamma spectrum.
- YZF 1y agoWhat was to stop Iran from secretly enriching Uranium in sites inspectors have no access to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Secret_expansion_and_weaponization_efforts_(1990s%E2%80%932002) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Secret... "The revelation that Iran had built major nuclear facilities in secret, without required disclosure to the IAEA, ignited an international crisis and raised questions about the program's true aim."
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
- hackyhacky 1y agoIt would be great if we had a diplomatic agreement with Iran to monitor and limit its nuclear development! Oh wait, we did. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_...
- awongh 1y agoPart of the reason it was cancelled was because Iran was still funding a bunch of proxy armies and still developing non-nuclear ballistic missiles?
- Aeolun 1y agoThe US was angry Iran had a civilian rocket program?
- hackyhacky 1y agoThat doesn't seem like a good reason to cancel the only thing stopping them from developing nukes. Of course they fund proxy armies, but that's a reginal problem that can be addressed through conventional means. Cancelling the Joint Agreement is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. In particular, it was clearly an expression of Trump's animus to Obama.
- awongh 1y agoFor sure part of it is goading them into looking like the bad guys. Otoh, ballistic missiles eventually become a western europe/NATO security issue. Not exactly sure how close Iran would be to that, but that is an element of the situation.
- acdha 1y agoBallistic missiles are a problem but also why it would be better to keep them from having nuclear bombs to put on those missiles.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
- sodality2 1y agoYour question necessitates the idea that the US is some sort of worldwide nanny state, where anything that happens without an action, the US “let” happen. It’s an innocent question but the assumptions are far more drastic. Reflect on some other alternatives besides “the US is in charge of everything”, especially looking at our track record in the Middle East.
- twodave 1y agoThe premise here is correct only as far as it is true that anyone besides the US possesses the capacity to act. Beyond that point, it is no longer charitable to frame it that way.
- amazingamazing 1y agoAgain, just curious - so you believe countries shouldn’t intervene if others decide they want nuclear tech and or weapons? I see both arguments, but I’m curious what others think
- sodality2 1y agoBy "others", you presumably mean credible threats from enemy states (since we allow Israel to secretly harbor nuclear weaponry with no problem). But no, I don't think that. I think it's nuanced, and I think that it's wrong to frame it with language like "let", instead of saying it like it is: starting a war to intervene. War in the Middle East is historically a bad idea, and there better be a good reason to justify the senseless death. I think the seriousness of that decision should not be minimized by statements like "well we couldn't just let them do anything". There is a serious chance of this escalating into something far worse.
- nradov 1y agoUnlike Iran, Israel is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The official concern has always been that Iran signed the NPT, but then at various times seems to have possibly violated the terms. I'm not necessarily in favor of this recent attack, just pointing out that legally Israel and Iran are in completely different situations.
- sbmthakur 1y agoDo we have irrefutable evidence that Iran was that close to a nuke?
- hackyhacky 1y agoNo. In fact, there is no (public) evidence at all.
- hypeatei 1y agoThe IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) released a report in May saying they enriched up to 60% U-235 at one of their facilities[0]. > As previously reported, on 5 December 2024, Iran started feeding the two IR-6 cascades producing UF6 enriched up to 60% U-235 at FFEP with UF6 enriched up to 20% U-235, rather than UF6 enriched up to 5% U-235, without altering the enrichment level of the product. The effect of this change has been to significantly increase the rate of production of UF6 enriched up to 60% at FFEP to over 34 kg of uranium in the form of UF6 per month. 0: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
- sodality2 1y ago60% is not weapons grade.
- andrepd 1y agoNot ripping up a treaty that was being upheld by Iran would be an excellent start.
- Aeolun 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- NoMoreWars 1y agoThat is typically how sovereignty works, yes.
- lwansbrough 1y agoNo it isn't. Most countries work with other countries under a shared set of principles. Even China and Russia do this to an extent. Where deviation happens, it happens when a country can afford to do it (see: south China sea disputes.) Sometimes, they'll do it anyway and suffer (see: North Korea.) Doing whatever you want is just opening yourself fully to the full spectrum of game theory outcomes. The leadership in Iran is discovering what that means.
- aisenik 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against_nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against... Probably something other than the one thing that would justify lifting the mid 90's fatwa declaring the creation, possession, and use of nuclear weapons against Islamic law. How aware is this community of the Supreme Leader's staunch opposition to nuclear weapons? This is pure imperialism.
- tptacek 1y agoThey literally printed a bank note celebrating their nuclear program. The SL is not "staunchly opposed to nuclear weapons". (I think the B-2 strikes were a terribly stupid idea and that Trump got rolled by Netanyahu here, but I'm not going to be negatively polarized into thinking the Iranian SL is a benign figure.)
- CamperBob2 1y agoNuclear program != nuclear weapons program, though.
- aisenik 1y agoIt is remarkable to see such intellectual dishonesty from so highly a respected figure here. Those of you who received adequate Liberal Arts education will see through him, whether you agree with his intended rhetorical outcome or not.
- throwaway2037 1y agoOk, I will take the bait. Two countries that are frequently noted as having the capability to build nuclear weapons is Japan and Korea. (For the purpose of this post, please assume with good faith that they don't have secret programmes to build nuclear weapons.) Both have world-leading civilian nuclear power programmes and at least part of the nuclear fuel cycle onshore. Side note: One thing that I never see discussed: As both countries are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Act, I assume that they have regular audits of their facilities by IEAE. (If they were consistently failing with major mishaps, or secret programmes, I am sure that we would read about it.) Both of them have incredibly sophisticated national scientific research programmes that could easily pursue nuclear weapons. What is the difference between Japan & Korea vs Iran? It is simple: Trust. On the surface, sure, what you say might be true. However, it is hard to trust Iran as they so consistently threaten Israel. What do you think would happen if Iran had the bomb? They would lord over Israel and threaten them on the regular. This would be massively destabilizing for the region and world. Final question: Is it harder to build a safe, civilian nuclear power programme compared to a (safe?) nuclear weapons programme? I don't know.
- whoknowsidont 1y agoCurious what the alternative is here? Let the U.S. do whatever? Genuinely curious.
- UltraSane 1y agoIf you trust Iran with nuclear weapons you are not wise.
- sahila 1y agoNot wise in what way? You say that likely as an American without caring at all about the people in Iran. The US is the only nation is have used a nuclear weapon and frankly is far more capable of destruction than Iran is even with nukes.
- UltraSane 1y ago[flagged]
- whoknowsidont 1y agoDo you have an actual counter-point or are you just immediately going to loop into thought-terminating cliches?
- UltraSane 1y ago[flagged]
- ericmay 1y agoOn the other hand, the US only used atomic weapons to end a devastating war inflicted upon it by a ferocious and fanatical adversary, and in doing so saved both American and Japanese lives from continued fighting. Though your point about the US being more capable of destruction than Iran is obviously true. China also is more capable of destruction than Iran, as are Israel, Russia (as we see today with their unprovoked invasion of Ukraine), and many others.
- anonym29 1y agoChina and the Soviet Union developing atomic and nuclear capabilities were never a justification to bomb Chinese or Soviet nuclear facilities.
- Detrytus 1y agoSoviet Union was an US peer, in terms of power, and China was their ally. Bombing their nuclear facilities could result in war that the US could just as well lose, so that's why they had to show some restraint. But believe me, they would bomb those facilities if they could.
- anonym29 1y agoSo just to be clear, it's only morally acceptable to wage wars against countries that are unquestionably incapable of defending themselves?
- Detrytus 1y agoI did not say anything about "morally acceptable", I was talking about what's possible, and yes, it is much easier to wage wars against countries that are weaker than you.
- anonym29 1y agoThe conversation wasn't about whether or not bombing Iran was possible (it obviously was), but whether or not it was morally justifiable.
- runako 1y agoProbably not your intent, but this is a very clear summation of why it is is likely understood as critical to Iranian security to develop and publicly test a nuclear weapon.
- aisenik 1y agoThe development, acquisition, and use of nuclear weapons has been against Islamic law in the Islamic Republic of Iran since the mid 90s under a fatwa issued by Khamenei, the Supreme Leader. It is well understood that Iran wants the ability to develop nuclear weapons in the event of an existential threat that justifies the atrocity of their creation but all of the evidence suggests that they are otherwise uninterested in nuclear weapons. We do not significantly disagree, but I take umbrage at the repetition of the pernicious lie that Iran wants nuclear weapons. They want sovereignty in their land and justice for the Islamic people. This is a reasonable position.