5 ms·

"They only want the bomb to stop others from stopping them getting the bomb." > Their calculus just went from “probably screwed if we don’t have nukes” to “def

"They only want the bomb to stop others from stopping them getting the bomb." > Their calculus just went from “probably screwed if we don’t have nukes” to “definitely screwed if we don’t have nukes”. Or, option 3: totally fine if we don't try to get nukes.

HEmanZ 1y ago
It might be splitting hair, but I do agree that if a new regime gained power that was tightly aligned with some world super power, and got some kind of serious protectorate status, then they could be totally fine without nukes. The current regime is not safe without them. You can’t honestly believe they are unless you are totally ignorant of the history and state of the region. So the current regime will keep trying until they succeed or are replaced.
- js4ever 1y ago
  lets hope they get replaced and we can have "democratic republic of perse" that would be so much better than what iran is currently
  - HEmanZ 1y ago
    It’s one of the reasons I’m torn on what the US should do here. I think this intervention is the most likely way a regime change occurs, but the least likely way to stabilize the region. So some small chance of a great outcome, much larger chance of a bad outcome. I think allowing nuclear weapons in Iran is a very small chance of a very bad outcome, and an almost guaranteed chance of a middling outcome. How do you balance these? What are the actual risks? I’d love to read more people’s analysis on it.
    - js4ever 1y ago
      Nuclear weapons in the hands of crazy islamist terrorists and sponsoring all other terrorists around the world (Hutis, Hezbollah, Hamas, ...), with crystal clear public plans to destroy israel, what could go wrong? I don't see how it could be worst, any other gov in Iran would be better for the world and for the peoples in Iran. Are you genuinly thinking that giving nuclear weapons to terrorists is a good idea?
      - bamboozled 1y ago
        Apparently your rational viewpoint isn’t mainstream , which is wild. The Iranian regime is literally sending terrorists in Russia equipment to murder innocent people on the daily, but that’s fine for most people…
      - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
        Nuclear weapons are already in the hands of crazy Jewish ethnonationalists and religious nuts. Those guys have been going completely crazy for the last two years, carrying out a genocide in Gaza, invading Lebanon and Syria, and attacking Iran. By comparison, the Iranian goverment looks calm and rational. Israel has attacked Iran three separate times in just the last two years. The first two times, Iran tried to prevent escalation by calibrating its response and informing Israel beforehand. It's pretty obvious why Iran would want nuclear weapons. The US and Israel have made it clear that they want regime change in Iran. Iran tried making a deal with the US, and what happened? The very next US administration ripped up the deal. Then, the Iranians tried to negotiate a new deal, but Israel and the US attacked them while the negotiations were ongoing. What lesson are the Iranians supposed to draw from that?
- ngruhn 1y ago
  Egypt and Jorden are totally fine without nukes. The only thing they had to do is stop attacking Israel, stop funding terrorist organizations that do and stop threatening Israel with annihilation. Iran is the aggressor here. If they would just chill, they would have nothing to fear.
  - HEmanZ 1y ago
    Both Egypt and Jordan are US protectorates with no regional superpowers threatening their ruling regimes. Jordan couldn’t if they dreamed of it, Egypt might have but the US shows no interest in toppling its regime and mediation between them and Israel has been going about as well as possible given their histories. You’re right, they could chill and be fine. If they trusted the US, or Russia, or China enough to protect them, or trusted Israel to leave their regime alone for the next 100 years. Do you think it’s reasonable for them (the current theocracy) to have this trust in their current position? I find it much more rational that they do not.
    - bamboozled 1y ago
      Who needs protecting ? From what I’ve seen not even the populace really wants the current regime there, if it’s wiped out I’m not sure anyone cares but NK China and Russia (terrorist or terrorist funding countries)
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > Egypt and Jorden are totally fine without nukes I don’t think the Iranian regime looks at Egypt as either totally fine or even in an enviable state, security-wise.
dmbche 1y ago
Wasnt Gabbard saying Iran was not and hasn't been working on nukes since 2003? What if they weren't working on nukes and got bombed anyway - can you imagine what kind of situation that would put them in?
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  Gabbard is a stooge for the Russia/Iran axis, a faction within MAGA which has recently lost out to the stooges for Israel.
  - dmbche 1y ago
    Respectfully, drop the conspiracies, the dept of intel has been consistent on this line since 2003, even if she were some kind of whatever you're hoping for, were all the directors since 2003 in the same position?
    - luckylion 1y ago
      The IAEA reported in 2023: ---- 34. During the monthly interim verification (IIV) on 22 January 2023, the Agency took environmental samples from the product sampling point at FFEP, the analytical results of which showed the presence of high enriched uranium (HEU) particles containing up to 83.7% U-235. The Agency informed Iran that these findings were inconsistent with the level of enrichment of the UF6 produced at FFEP, as declared by Iran, and requested Iran to clarify the origin of these HEU particles. 35. In a letter dated 20 February 2023, Iran informed the Agency that “unintended fluctuations in enrichment levels may have occurred during transition period at the time of commissioning the process of [60%] product (November 2022) or while replacing the feed cylinder”. Discussions between the Agency and Iran to clarify the matter are ongoing. 36. On 26 February 2023, the Agency took destructive analysis samples from the cylinder containing the HEU product at FFEP, the results of which showed that the enrichment level of UF6 produced at FFEP remained up to 60% U-235. This cylinder has been collecting the HEU product since the start of production of UF6 enriched up to 60% at FFEP in November 2022. ---- If Iran "hasn't been working on" a weapons program since 2003, did the uranium just jumped from 5% (required for the claimed purposes) to nearly 83% (not consistent with any purpose besides nuclear weapons as far as I understand)? Sounds like a strange claim, I wonder if that was really the consensus in the US intelligence community, or an opinion of Gabbard. [1] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/gov2023-8.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/gov2023-8...
DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
Iran tried option 3 in 2015, when it agreed to the JCPOA, but Trump withdrew from the agreement and applied "maximum pressure" on Iran. There were forces in Iranian politics who argued for making a deal with the US. They even won out in 2015. But now, they've been proven wrong, and the hardliners (who should perhaps now be called the "realists") were proven right. The US isn't a reliable partner, and is willing to rip up any deal Iran makes.
- luckylion 1y ago
  Agreeing to an agreement while continuing the obvious weapon program they've claimed to not even have anymore isn't "trying option 3" though. That's slowing down in exchange for fewer sanctions.
  - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
    Iran complied with the terms of the JCPOA, which guaranteed that the program was purely civil.
    - luckylion 1y ago
      Yes, because agreements guarantee that they are being adhered to, which is why the IAEA always had access to everything (narrator: they did not), Iran did not deploy more and more advanced centrifuges than agreed (narrator: they did), and Iran did not stockpile more enriched uranium than agreed (narrator: they did).
      - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
        You're making a whole series of false claims. Iran gave the IAEA access to everything, and reduced its centrifuges and enriched uranium stockpiles to the agreed-upon amounts. Even the Trump administration certified that Iran was abiding by the JCPOA. The reason Israel did not like the JCPOA was not because Iran was somehow not complying or because the deal wouldn't prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Israel didn't like the deal because Israel wanted sanctions to be maintained on Iran and for Iranian conventional military strength to be limited. Israel wants a weak Iran.

HEmanZ 1y ago

It might be splitting hair, but I do agree that if a new regime gained power that was tightly aligned with some world super power, and got some kind of serious protectorate status, then they could be totally fine without nukes. The current regime is not safe without them. You can’t honestly believe they are unless you are totally ignorant of the history and state of the region. So the current regime will keep trying until they succeed or are replaced.

js4ever 1y ago
lets hope they get replaced and we can have "democratic republic of perse" that would be so much better than what iran is currently
- HEmanZ 1y ago
  It’s one of the reasons I’m torn on what the US should do here. I think this intervention is the most likely way a regime change occurs, but the least likely way to stabilize the region. So some small chance of a great outcome, much larger chance of a bad outcome. I think allowing nuclear weapons in Iran is a very small chance of a very bad outcome, and an almost guaranteed chance of a middling outcome. How do you balance these? What are the actual risks? I’d love to read more people’s analysis on it.
  - js4ever 1y ago
    Nuclear weapons in the hands of crazy islamist terrorists and sponsoring all other terrorists around the world (Hutis, Hezbollah, Hamas, ...), with crystal clear public plans to destroy israel, what could go wrong? I don't see how it could be worst, any other gov in Iran would be better for the world and for the peoples in Iran. Are you genuinly thinking that giving nuclear weapons to terrorists is a good idea?
    - bamboozled 1y ago
      Apparently your rational viewpoint isn’t mainstream , which is wild. The Iranian regime is literally sending terrorists in Russia equipment to murder innocent people on the daily, but that’s fine for most people…
    - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
      Nuclear weapons are already in the hands of crazy Jewish ethnonationalists and religious nuts. Those guys have been going completely crazy for the last two years, carrying out a genocide in Gaza, invading Lebanon and Syria, and attacking Iran. By comparison, the Iranian goverment looks calm and rational. Israel has attacked Iran three separate times in just the last two years. The first two times, Iran tried to prevent escalation by calibrating its response and informing Israel beforehand. It's pretty obvious why Iran would want nuclear weapons. The US and Israel have made it clear that they want regime change in Iran. Iran tried making a deal with the US, and what happened? The very next US administration ripped up the deal. Then, the Iranians tried to negotiate a new deal, but Israel and the US attacked them while the negotiations were ongoing. What lesson are the Iranians supposed to draw from that?
ngruhn 1y ago
Egypt and Jorden are totally fine without nukes. The only thing they had to do is stop attacking Israel, stop funding terrorist organizations that do and stop threatening Israel with annihilation. Iran is the aggressor here. If they would just chill, they would have nothing to fear.
- HEmanZ 1y ago
  Both Egypt and Jordan are US protectorates with no regional superpowers threatening their ruling regimes. Jordan couldn’t if they dreamed of it, Egypt might have but the US shows no interest in toppling its regime and mediation between them and Israel has been going about as well as possible given their histories. You’re right, they could chill and be fine. If they trusted the US, or Russia, or China enough to protect them, or trusted Israel to leave their regime alone for the next 100 years. Do you think it’s reasonable for them (the current theocracy) to have this trust in their current position? I find it much more rational that they do not.
  - bamboozled 1y ago
    Who needs protecting ? From what I’ve seen not even the populace really wants the current regime there, if it’s wiped out I’m not sure anyone cares but NK China and Russia (terrorist or terrorist funding countries)
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > Egypt and Jorden are totally fine without nukes I don’t think the Iranian regime looks at Egypt as either totally fine or even in an enviable state, security-wise.

dmbche 1y ago

Wasnt Gabbard saying Iran was not and hasn't been working on nukes since 2003? What if they weren't working on nukes and got bombed anyway - can you imagine what kind of situation that would put them in?

dragonwriter 1y ago
Gabbard is a stooge for the Russia/Iran axis, a faction within MAGA which has recently lost out to the stooges for Israel.
- dmbche 1y ago
  Respectfully, drop the conspiracies, the dept of intel has been consistent on this line since 2003, even if she were some kind of whatever you're hoping for, were all the directors since 2003 in the same position?
  - luckylion 1y ago
    The IAEA reported in 2023: ---- 34. During the monthly interim verification (IIV) on 22 January 2023, the Agency took environmental samples from the product sampling point at FFEP, the analytical results of which showed the presence of high enriched uranium (HEU) particles containing up to 83.7% U-235. The Agency informed Iran that these findings were inconsistent with the level of enrichment of the UF6 produced at FFEP, as declared by Iran, and requested Iran to clarify the origin of these HEU particles. 35. In a letter dated 20 February 2023, Iran informed the Agency that “unintended fluctuations in enrichment levels may have occurred during transition period at the time of commissioning the process of [60%] product (November 2022) or while replacing the feed cylinder”. Discussions between the Agency and Iran to clarify the matter are ongoing. 36. On 26 February 2023, the Agency took destructive analysis samples from the cylinder containing the HEU product at FFEP, the results of which showed that the enrichment level of UF6 produced at FFEP remained up to 60% U-235. This cylinder has been collecting the HEU product since the start of production of UF6 enriched up to 60% at FFEP in November 2022. ---- If Iran "hasn't been working on" a weapons program since 2003, did the uranium just jumped from 5% (required for the claimed purposes) to nearly 83% (not consistent with any purpose besides nuclear weapons as far as I understand)? Sounds like a strange claim, I wonder if that was really the consensus in the US intelligence community, or an opinion of Gabbard. [1] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/gov2023-8.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/gov2023-8...

DiogenesKynikos 1y ago

Iran tried option 3 in 2015, when it agreed to the JCPOA, but Trump withdrew from the agreement and applied "maximum pressure" on Iran. There were forces in Iranian politics who argued for making a deal with the US. They even won out in 2015. But now, they've been proven wrong, and the hardliners (who should perhaps now be called the "realists") were proven right. The US isn't a reliable partner, and is willing to rip up any deal Iran makes.

luckylion 1y ago
Agreeing to an agreement while continuing the obvious weapon program they've claimed to not even have anymore isn't "trying option 3" though. That's slowing down in exchange for fewer sanctions.
- DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
  Iran complied with the terms of the JCPOA, which guaranteed that the program was purely civil.
  - luckylion 1y ago
    Yes, because agreements guarantee that they are being adhered to, which is why the IAEA always had access to everything (narrator: they did not), Iran did not deploy more and more advanced centrifuges than agreed (narrator: they did), and Iran did not stockpile more enriched uranium than agreed (narrator: they did).
    - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
      You're making a whole series of false claims. Iran gave the IAEA access to everything, and reduced its centrifuges and enriched uranium stockpiles to the agreed-upon amounts. Even the Trump administration certified that Iran was abiding by the JCPOA. The reason Israel did not like the JCPOA was not because Iran was somehow not complying or because the deal wouldn't prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Israel didn't like the deal because Israel wanted sanctions to be maintained on Iran and for Iranian conventional military strength to be limited. Israel wants a weak Iran.