3 ms·
They “could have” had nuclear weapons for a long time if they’d wanted to, yes, but they didn’t get them. They signed the NPT, allowed inspections, and their ru
by danenania 1y ago
They “could have” had nuclear weapons for a long time if they’d wanted to, yes, but they didn’t get them. They signed the NPT, allowed inspections, and their ruler issued a fatwa against developing nuclear weapons. Why’d they do all that if their goal all along was to get a nuclear weapon? They could have just done it.
These attacks make it clear that they would have been better off if they had gotten them, so it seems reasonable to assume this will be their new policy. What other strategic choice have they been left with?
- dlubarov 1y agoJust to clarify, is your position that Iran was never working toward nuclear weapons, or just not until recently? I think enriching uranium to 60% is pretty clear evidence of their intent, even though it's just one component of an eventual weapon. Being an NPT signatory could be evidence of Iran not working toward nuclear weapons, if they were compliant. But they have violated their NPT obligations on some occasions, with major violations recently.
- danenania 1y agoI think they wanted to be seen as credibly close as a deterrent and bargaining chip in negotiations, but they had no intention of going all the way unless attacked. Now they likely do intend to get them asap if they’re able to.
- guelo 1y agoWhy would it be up to a rogue non-NPT country, Israel, to enforce the NPT?
- dlubarov 1y agoThere isn't really such a thing as (forcefully) enforcing the NPT. Israel's casus belli (if we consider this a new war and not a continuation of one) would be based on self-defense.