5 ms·

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.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      You'd be wrong. Iran actively got rid of nearly all of its stockpile under the JCPOA. 10,000kg down to 300. Clearly that was all for nothing, so no country will ever agree to a similar deal ever again. The deal worked great. Bibi and Trump failed.
      - yyyk 1y ago
        Iran did not have the tech to get beyond 20% at the time. The deal gave them time and funds for that, which is hardly nonproliferation work. >Clearly that was all for nothing, so no country will ever agree to a similar deal ever again. Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings. But that's inconvenient politically so nobody mentions who was President then.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        > which is hardly nonproliferation work. Except for the part that it reduced proliferation, reduced stockpiles, and dramatically increased breakout time...? You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich? You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you? As Ali Bhutto said: "We will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get our own [nuclear weapon].... We have no other choice!” > Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings Say more. What's the relevance?
        yyyk 1y ago
        >Except for the part that it reduced proliferation, reduced stockpiles, and dramatically increased breakout time The breakout time was _reduced_ in the long run, since Iran was allowed to keep stocks and enrich (limits were to be removed starting from 2026 up to 2031). >You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich They could just give up. >You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you? I do. They want it for offensive purposes, so it's best to handle it when it's easy. It would have been easier to handle AlQaeda without the risk of Pakistani nukes falling to it. >Say more. What's the relevance? Literally read the other talking points on the thread on how signing disarmament deals are cuz see how Qadaffi ended up. US did not have to make that choice.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jlqXOwYfpdQ https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jlqXOwYfpdQ

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.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    You'd be wrong. Iran actively got rid of nearly all of its stockpile under the JCPOA. 10,000kg down to 300. Clearly that was all for nothing, so no country will ever agree to a similar deal ever again. The deal worked great. Bibi and Trump failed.
    - yyyk 1y ago
      Iran did not have the tech to get beyond 20% at the time. The deal gave them time and funds for that, which is hardly nonproliferation work. >Clearly that was all for nothing, so no country will ever agree to a similar deal ever again. Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings. But that's inconvenient politically so nobody mentions who was President then.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        > which is hardly nonproliferation work. Except for the part that it reduced proliferation, reduced stockpiles, and dramatically increased breakout time...? You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich? You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you? As Ali Bhutto said: "We will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get our own [nuclear weapon].... We have no other choice!” > Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings Say more. What's the relevance?
        yyyk 1y ago
        >Except for the part that it reduced proliferation, reduced stockpiles, and dramatically increased breakout time The breakout time was _reduced_ in the long run, since Iran was allowed to keep stocks and enrich (limits were to be removed starting from 2026 up to 2031). >You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich They could just give up. >You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you? I do. They want it for offensive purposes, so it's best to handle it when it's easy. It would have been easier to handle AlQaeda without the risk of Pakistani nukes falling to it. >Say more. What's the relevance? Literally read the other talking points on the thread on how signing disarmament deals are cuz see how Qadaffi ended up. US did not have to make that choice.