6 ms·

They are manufacturing consent by saying Iran was days away from having nuclear weapons.

by awongh 1y ago

hackyhacky 1y ago
They have been saying that (at least) since 1995.
- archsurface 1y ago
  Well, it takes about 20 years. Throw in a virus, assassinations, inspections, ... sounds about right.
- YZF 1y ago
  Israel 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 ago
    One 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 ago
      The 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 ago
        It 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 ago
        The 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.
      - joshlingaround 1y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat
    - cchance 1y ago
      They said it was weeks away in 2008, 2012, 2017 and 2023... and now we're back here again
archsurface 1y ago
Facilities 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 ago
  I can understand the Iranian reluctance to negotiate with the US. Trump has demonstrated that he is particularly honorable.
  - archsurface 1y ago
    That would be pointlessly defeatist. Also, other parties are involved to bear witness.
- awongh 1y ago
  Let'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 ago
    I 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 ago
What’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 ago
LOL Daily Show had a show about it Netanyahu has been saying Iran will have nukes within weeks, since 2008
- awongh 1y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jlqXOwYfpdQ https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jlqXOwYfpdQ
- lwansbrough 1y ago
  Well 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 ago
  Netanyahu 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      The 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 ago
Who is 'they'? United States, Israel, media outlet?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

They are manufacturing consent by saying Iran was days away from having nuclear weapons.

by awongh 1y ago

They are manufacturing consent by saying Iran was days away from having nuclear weapons.

hackyhacky 1y ago

They have been saying that (at least) since 1995.

archsurface 1y ago
Well, it takes about 20 years. Throw in a virus, assassinations, inspections, ... sounds about right.
YZF 1y ago
Israel 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 ago
  One 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      It 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 ago
        The 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.
    - joshlingaround 1y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat
  - cchance 1y ago
    They said it was weeks away in 2008, 2012, 2017 and 2023... and now we're back here again

archsurface 1y ago

Facilities 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 ago
I can understand the Iranian reluctance to negotiate with the US. Trump has demonstrated that he is particularly honorable.
- archsurface 1y ago
  That would be pointlessly defeatist. Also, other parties are involved to bear witness.
awongh 1y ago
Let'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 ago
  I 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 ago

What’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 ago

LOL Daily Show had a show about it Netanyahu has been saying Iran will have nukes within weeks, since 2008

awongh 1y ago
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jlqXOwYfpdQ https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jlqXOwYfpdQ
lwansbrough 1y ago
Well 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 ago
Netanyahu 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    The 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 ago

Who is 'they'? United States, Israel, media outlet?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]