6 ms·

The only way out of this in the long term is via negotiations. The US and Israel were lucky that Iran built their Fordow plant only 50 meters underground. What

The only way out of this in the long term is via negotiations. The US and Israel were lucky that Iran built their Fordow plant only 50 meters underground. What will the US do when Iran rebuilds it far deeper? They have a coal mine going 1200 meters deep. Iran is technologically far more capable than North Korea, which ultimately succeeded in building the bomb. The US knows this and wouldn't have started this war if Israel hadn't done it first. The first Iran deal in 2015 was not perfect, but it would have provided some guarantees for 15 years. If Iran is determined, how many years has this bombing bought? If I had to guess, Israel is back calling doom ~3 years when the US is having new elections. Israel doesn't want the removal of the Iran sanctions, why would they? This means whatever deal the US makes with Iran, it's not going to be good enough for Israel.

Stevvo 1y ago
There is another way out that may be more likely than negotiations; Iran will now obtain a nuclear weapon. Iran has had the capability to build one for as long as Netanyahu has been singing about it(20+ years). Now they have the motivation also.
- bamboozled 1y ago
  If they had the capability , why was this a bad move and how does taking out their bomb making facilities more likely they can now just produce a bomb ?
  - HEmanZ 1y ago
    The main reason to want a bomb is to stop people from interfering with/attacking you. It has now become even more obvious to them that the most powerful country on earth is willing to attack them in order to control them and their region. Their calculus just went from “probably screwed if we don’t have nukes” to “definitely screwed if we don’t have nukes”. They’ll find a way now, they can always dig deeper.
    - jraby3 1y ago
      They have repeatedly threatened Israel and the US. Nothing good (for western democracies) comes from Iran getting a bomb.
      - kjkjadksj 1y ago
        Doesn’t Pakistan and NK do the same? They have bombs. Where is the promised armageddon?
        bamboozled 1y ago
        Isn’t the idea to have less NK and Pakistans though ?
        arbitrary_name 1y ago
        Doesn't this prove that nuclear weapons stop the NKs and Pakistans of the world from being bombed?
        bamboozled 1y ago
        I have no idea why that's relevant, the point is, it' good to have one less nuclear armed rogue state?
        kjkjadksj 1y ago
        The only nation to use a nuke on another person is the US. Not these “rogue” states but the US.
      - baxuz 1y ago
        Israel has also threatened with nuclear weapons: https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/wait-why-is-israel-allowed-to-have-nukes https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/wait-why-is-israel-allow...
      - 1y ago
tim333 1y ago
Or regime change. Not saying it's a good idea but I'd give it at least 50/50 of happening.
cced 1y ago
How do you negotiate with a country(ies?) that blows up your chief negotiators?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- ReptileMan 1y ago
  Carefully and with submissiveness.
kyrra 1y ago
> The first Iran deal in 2015 was not perfect, but it would have provided some guarantees for 15 years. And then what? They have nuclear weapons? Which is what Israel and the US doesn't want. Also, Iran didn't even let inspector into all of the enrichment sites they had, so they were breaking the original deal with Obama from the start.
- daveguy 1y ago
  15 years is a lot better than immediately resuming enrichment. Which happened as soon as Trump scrapped the previous agreement. It still took them 7+ years to get to where they are now. So, it would have been 22 years, not 15. Trump is a short-sighted fool.
- probably_wrong 1y ago
  > Also, Iran didn't even let inspector into all of the enrichment sites they had, so they were breaking the original deal with Obama from the start. I should point out that this view is not unanimous. Using Politifact as a source [1]: "We reported in 2017 that Iran had largely complied with the deal, and many experts praised the pact for keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of Tehran. Over the 28 months the deal was in effect, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it found Iran committed no violations, aside from some minor infractions that were addressed." And from their linked article[2]: "A complex, technical process like this one is inevitably going to face small hiccups," said Ariane M. Tabatabai, visiting assistant professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. "Just as Iran believes there have been hiccups on the U.S. side." My understanding is that Iran was largely complying with the treaty by the time Trump decided to scrap it. [1] https://api.politifact.com/article/2025/jun/18/Iran-nuclear-deal-Obama-Trump-Israel/ https://api.politifact.com/article/2025/jun/18/Iran-nuclear-... [2] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jun/14/karen-handel/iran-complying-nuclear-deal-yes-small-hiccups/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jun/14/karen-hand...
thimabi 1y ago
> The US and Israel were lucky that Iran built their Fordow plant only 50 meters underground. What will the US do when Iran rebuilds it far deeper? Most likely Israel would attack even before such a facility became operational. It’s not like they haven’t done preemptive strikes before.
hereme888 1y ago
That would be so far into the future, the Ayatollah will be far gone by then.
sanderjd 1y ago
I think it is fantasy to think we can ever get back to a point where we're seen as a credible negotiating partner, after the events of the past decade.
- make3 1y ago
  maybe in 11 to 15 years after eventual respective Democratic and a non-Trump Republican governments
  - andrewflnr 1y ago
    This is still very optimistic. The only reason this would work is that America's negotiating partners want to believe the change is real. The American people will remain roughly the same electorate that elected Trump (for a second term, after he incited an insurrection), so the danger will remain.
    - make3 1y ago
      The hope would be that Trump would be seen as a one-in-a-kind terrible mix of both hyper-charismatic and negative, like Adolf Hitler
      - sanderjd 1y ago
        Very unlikely. He won twice and fully owns one of our two parties. Any hope for "he was an aberration" died last November.
      - andrewflnr 1y ago
        As long as we're Godwin-ing this conversation, Germany has publicly repented for the whole Hitler thing. Public, unified repudiation of Trump would be minimum bar for America to be taken seriously again. I don't see this happening in my lifetime.
        pas 1y ago

Stevvo 1y ago

There is another way out that may be more likely than negotiations; Iran will now obtain a nuclear weapon. Iran has had the capability to build one for as long as Netanyahu has been singing about it(20+ years). Now they have the motivation also.

bamboozled 1y ago
If they had the capability , why was this a bad move and how does taking out their bomb making facilities more likely they can now just produce a bomb ?
- HEmanZ 1y ago
  The main reason to want a bomb is to stop people from interfering with/attacking you. It has now become even more obvious to them that the most powerful country on earth is willing to attack them in order to control them and their region. Their calculus just went from “probably screwed if we don’t have nukes” to “definitely screwed if we don’t have nukes”. They’ll find a way now, they can always dig deeper.
  - jraby3 1y ago
    They have repeatedly threatened Israel and the US. Nothing good (for western democracies) comes from Iran getting a bomb.
    - kjkjadksj 1y ago
      Doesn’t Pakistan and NK do the same? They have bombs. Where is the promised armageddon?
      - bamboozled 1y ago
        Isn’t the idea to have less NK and Pakistans though ?
        arbitrary_name 1y ago
        Doesn't this prove that nuclear weapons stop the NKs and Pakistans of the world from being bombed?
        bamboozled 1y ago
        I have no idea why that's relevant, the point is, it' good to have one less nuclear armed rogue state?
        kjkjadksj 1y ago
        The only nation to use a nuke on another person is the US. Not these “rogue” states but the US.
    - baxuz 1y ago
      Israel has also threatened with nuclear weapons: https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/wait-why-is-israel-allowed-to-have-nukes https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/wait-why-is-israel-allow...
    - 1y ago

tim333 1y ago

Or regime change. Not saying it's a good idea but I'd give it at least 50/50 of happening.

cced 1y ago

How do you negotiate with a country(ies?) that blows up your chief negotiators?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ReptileMan 1y ago
Carefully and with submissiveness.

kyrra 1y ago

> The first Iran deal in 2015 was not perfect, but it would have provided some guarantees for 15 years. And then what? They have nuclear weapons? Which is what Israel and the US doesn't want. Also, Iran didn't even let inspector into all of the enrichment sites they had, so they were breaking the original deal with Obama from the start.

daveguy 1y ago
15 years is a lot better than immediately resuming enrichment. Which happened as soon as Trump scrapped the previous agreement. It still took them 7+ years to get to where they are now. So, it would have been 22 years, not 15. Trump is a short-sighted fool.
probably_wrong 1y ago
> Also, Iran didn't even let inspector into all of the enrichment sites they had, so they were breaking the original deal with Obama from the start. I should point out that this view is not unanimous. Using Politifact as a source [1]: "We reported in 2017 that Iran had largely complied with the deal, and many experts praised the pact for keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of Tehran. Over the 28 months the deal was in effect, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it found Iran committed no violations, aside from some minor infractions that were addressed." And from their linked article[2]: "A complex, technical process like this one is inevitably going to face small hiccups," said Ariane M. Tabatabai, visiting assistant professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. "Just as Iran believes there have been hiccups on the U.S. side." My understanding is that Iran was largely complying with the treaty by the time Trump decided to scrap it. [1] https://api.politifact.com/article/2025/jun/18/Iran-nuclear-deal-Obama-Trump-Israel/ https://api.politifact.com/article/2025/jun/18/Iran-nuclear-... [2] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jun/14/karen-handel/iran-complying-nuclear-deal-yes-small-hiccups/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jun/14/karen-hand...

thimabi 1y ago

> The US and Israel were lucky that Iran built their Fordow plant only 50 meters underground. What will the US do when Iran rebuilds it far deeper? Most likely Israel would attack even before such a facility became operational. It’s not like they haven’t done preemptive strikes before.

hereme888 1y ago

That would be so far into the future, the Ayatollah will be far gone by then.

sanderjd 1y ago

I think it is fantasy to think we can ever get back to a point where we're seen as a credible negotiating partner, after the events of the past decade.

make3 1y ago
maybe in 11 to 15 years after eventual respective Democratic and a non-Trump Republican governments
- andrewflnr 1y ago
  This is still very optimistic. The only reason this would work is that America's negotiating partners want to believe the change is real. The American people will remain roughly the same electorate that elected Trump (for a second term, after he incited an insurrection), so the danger will remain.
  - make3 1y ago
    The hope would be that Trump would be seen as a one-in-a-kind terrible mix of both hyper-charismatic and negative, like Adolf Hitler
    - sanderjd 1y ago
      Very unlikely. He won twice and fully owns one of our two parties. Any hope for "he was an aberration" died last November.
    - andrewflnr 1y ago
      As long as we're Godwin-ing this conversation, Germany has publicly repented for the whole Hitler thing. Public, unified repudiation of Trump would be minimum bar for America to be taken seriously again. I don't see this happening in my lifetime.
      - pas 1y ago