5 ms·

>Pointlessness of this war aside It's only pointless as long as you ignore their legitimate attempts of building nukes. If you don't want them to have nukes, t

>Pointlessness of this war aside It's only pointless as long as you ignore their legitimate attempts of building nukes. If you don't want them to have nukes, then military action is the only way to stop them unfortunately. Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage, so might as well do everything you can to prevent that before it happens, now that Russia is too busy to lend them a hand. >Iran has generally been an active and persistant threat for many US firms long before this war began I doubt this. Iran's leadership, like any dictatorship, just wants to be left alone to subjugate its people and enjoy the masses of wealth and power they have. When you're in such a privileged but fragile position, you don't go around poking the hornet's nest looking to start a fight with the biggest military in the world, because it would mean your end. But Iran will probably retaliate now that they got attacked. OR, it will be a false flag to justify boots on the ground. IDK.

the_gastropod 8mo ago
The "legitimate attempts of building nukes" as claimed by the same folks who, ~9 months ago said "Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated, and suggestions otherwise are fake news" (https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-facilities-have-been-obliterated-and-suggestions-otherwise-are-fake-news/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-fa...).
- lm28469 8mo ago
  They've been claiming Iran is about to destroy Israel every 6 months for the past 40 years too Israel, like the US, needs to be in a permanent state of war to keep the ball moving
  - joe_mamba 8mo ago
    >They've been claiming Iran is about to destroy Israel every 6 months for the past 40 years too Remember STUXNET? Have you thought for a second that maybe if their centrifuges and nuclear facilities weren't constantly attacked and sabotaged by US and Israel every step of the way for the past few decades, plus having their top nuclear scientists assassinated every now and then, they could have had nukes a long time ago when those warnings were issued without those constant roadblocks setting them back?
    - Forgeties79 8mo ago
      So the administration lied and Iran‘s nuclear capabilities weren’t “completely obliterated” back in June, and saying otherwise isn’t “fake news”? It can’t be both ways. Either way the administration is lying, so I just don’t trust any of the reasons given for the current conflict. The sad part is this is exactly what Trump and his administration, as well as the larger Republican Party, have wanted for years. My inherent distrust of every government action until I see overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
      - joe_mamba 8mo ago
        >It can’t be both ways. It can be over time. A country can rebuild its nuclear ambitions after they've been completely destroyed. Do you think Iran just gave up their nuclear ambition and 40 years of work after a bomb raid? "Think Mark, think"
        Forgeties79 8mo ago
        >Think Mark, think Needlessly patronizing. But moving past that, how could their capabilities have been “completely obliterated” months ago and yet they are now so close to making a bomb that it warranted all this? That doesn’t make any sense. Just like the tariffs or any other controversial decision, the administration is giving different answers to different people at different times. They seed talking points, they do not provide useful information. So again, either June was a failure and they lied or they are lying about this attack.
    - anigbrowl 8mo ago
      So what? Pakistan got nukes and still has them. Despite decades of antipathy and ongoing conflicts over Kashmir they have managed to restrain themselves from firing one at India, or even saber-rattling. The thing about nukes is that they massively disincentivize military attacks on your sovereignty. That strikes me as a perfectly legitimate reason to acquire them.
      - joe_mamba 8mo ago
- reliabilityguy 8mo ago
  Why does IR need 60% enriched uranium? The moment IR gets nukes, Saudis and all the other countries around them will get nukes as well. I don’t understand why everyone is so hell bent on not preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. We have enough of this crap already, and the last thing we need is more nukes.
  - the_gastropod 8mo ago
    I think you're missing the crux of the point: why is anything the Trump administration says taken at face value? They have no commitment to the truth, whatsoever. If Iran was on the path to developing nukes, the correct path here was to: 1. Show the evidence to congress, and declare war legally based on the facts. 2. Get international buy-in, and work with our allies (all of whom would very much like to prevent Iran from procuring a nuclear weapon). This was a hastily started war with flimsy goals and seemingly no real urgency. And one of the first things we did as part of our attack was to bomb an elementary school, killing hundreds of children. Critics of this war aren't "hell bent on not preventing the spread of nuclear weapons". We're mostly looking at the situation, and thinking "this is not great".
    - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
      > I think you're missing the crux of the point: why is anything the Trump administration says taken at face value? They have no commitment to the truth, whatsoever. No, I am not. It has nothing to do with Trump his abilities to speak only truth or always lie. IAEA itself reported the 60% figure [1]. [1] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
      - the_gastropod 8mo ago
        This is from May 2025. Before we, remember, "completely obliterated" their nuclear facilities. And again, nothing about this justifies the way this war was initiated.
nozzlegear 8mo ago
> It's only pointless as long as you ignore their legitimate attempts of building nukes. If you don't want them to have nukes, then military action is the only way to stop them unfortunately. Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage so might as well do everything you can to prevent that before it happens. Obama had a perfectly good deal in place with Iran before Trump fucked it all up. Military action was not the only way to stop them.
- joe_mamba 8mo ago
  >Obama had a perfectly good deal in place with Iran before Trump fucked it all up. What makes you think the Iranian regime is trustworthy to actually respect that deal and not just continue building nukes on the side while using diplomacy to string everyone along that they aren't? You know who else had a deal? Ukraine. Did that deal stop them from being attacked by Russia? Can you stop a military invasion by waving the piece of paper with the deal in the enemy's face? Because that's why nukes are the best insurance policy over deals and why Iran desperately wants them. How can people be so gullible to blindly trust Iran's word thinking a deal means anything?
  - the_gastropod 8mo ago
    > What makes you think the Iranian regime is trustworthy I don't think anyone believes the Iranian regime has ever been trustworthy. Probably why part of Obama's deal included inspections, surveillance, and monitoring.
    - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
      Obama’s deal specifically excluded surprise inspections (often referred to as "Anywhere, Anytime"). So, if you are trying to hide something, and you know that the inspection is coming, you will succeed.
      - SimianSci 8mo ago
Forgeties79 8mo ago
The nukes they’ve been “days away” from making since like 1992? The nuclear capacity we bombed “very successfully” months ago?
- reliabilityguy 8mo ago
  Having 60% enriched Uranium is about 2 weeks from having a nuke.
  - Forgeties79 8mo ago
    Man time dilation will get ya
    - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
      Yeah, sure. You can read IAEA report yourself: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
      - Forgeties79 8mo ago
        I legitimately thought you were making a joke and that I was doing a yes-and. Anyway have a good one
      - joe_mamba 8mo ago
        "If those kids could read, they'd be very upset" - Bobby Hill
beezlewax 8mo ago
> Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage Like Israel?
- joe_mamba 8mo ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- TurdF3rguson 8mo ago
  Holding hostages has never been part of Israel's playbook, it's always been very much part of Iran's.
  - mothballed 8mo ago
    They held most of gaza hostage, blocking their access to international waters off gaza's own coast, based on the actions of a much smaller subset of those people. That seems about the most classical example of holding hostage as it gets.
    - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
      > based on the actions of a much smaller subset of those people. Interesting way to describe the government the people of Gaza. If Palestinians launch the rockets from Gaza to Israel, why should Israel to continue their trade with them? This is counterintuitive.
      - mothballed 8mo ago
        Who says Israel should trade to them? I completely agree with Israel's right of shutting off Israeli borders and trade with Gaza I'm talking about motion from Gazan waters to directly adjacent international waters, none of which involves touching anything sovereign to Israel.
lukan 8mo ago
"I doubt this. Iran's leadership, like any dictatorship, just wants to be left alone to subjugate its people and enjoy the masses of wealth and power they have." So ... that is why they only cared about themself and did not involve with Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, ..

the_gastropod 8mo ago

The "legitimate attempts of building nukes" as claimed by the same folks who, ~9 months ago said "Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated, and suggestions otherwise are fake news" (https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-facilities-have-been-obliterated-and-suggestions-otherwise-are-fake-news/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-fa...).

lm28469 8mo ago
They've been claiming Iran is about to destroy Israel every 6 months for the past 40 years too Israel, like the US, needs to be in a permanent state of war to keep the ball moving
- joe_mamba 8mo ago
  >They've been claiming Iran is about to destroy Israel every 6 months for the past 40 years too Remember STUXNET? Have you thought for a second that maybe if their centrifuges and nuclear facilities weren't constantly attacked and sabotaged by US and Israel every step of the way for the past few decades, plus having their top nuclear scientists assassinated every now and then, they could have had nukes a long time ago when those warnings were issued without those constant roadblocks setting them back?
  - Forgeties79 8mo ago
    So the administration lied and Iran‘s nuclear capabilities weren’t “completely obliterated” back in June, and saying otherwise isn’t “fake news”? It can’t be both ways. Either way the administration is lying, so I just don’t trust any of the reasons given for the current conflict. The sad part is this is exactly what Trump and his administration, as well as the larger Republican Party, have wanted for years. My inherent distrust of every government action until I see overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
    - joe_mamba 8mo ago
      >It can’t be both ways. It can be over time. A country can rebuild its nuclear ambitions after they've been completely destroyed. Do you think Iran just gave up their nuclear ambition and 40 years of work after a bomb raid? "Think Mark, think"
      - Forgeties79 8mo ago
        >Think Mark, think Needlessly patronizing. But moving past that, how could their capabilities have been “completely obliterated” months ago and yet they are now so close to making a bomb that it warranted all this? That doesn’t make any sense. Just like the tariffs or any other controversial decision, the administration is giving different answers to different people at different times. They seed talking points, they do not provide useful information. So again, either June was a failure and they lied or they are lying about this attack.
  - anigbrowl 8mo ago
    So what? Pakistan got nukes and still has them. Despite decades of antipathy and ongoing conflicts over Kashmir they have managed to restrain themselves from firing one at India, or even saber-rattling. The thing about nukes is that they massively disincentivize military attacks on your sovereignty. That strikes me as a perfectly legitimate reason to acquire them.
    - joe_mamba 8mo ago
reliabilityguy 8mo ago
Why does IR need 60% enriched uranium? The moment IR gets nukes, Saudis and all the other countries around them will get nukes as well. I don’t understand why everyone is so hell bent on not preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. We have enough of this crap already, and the last thing we need is more nukes.
- the_gastropod 8mo ago
  I think you're missing the crux of the point: why is anything the Trump administration says taken at face value? They have no commitment to the truth, whatsoever. If Iran was on the path to developing nukes, the correct path here was to: 1. Show the evidence to congress, and declare war legally based on the facts. 2. Get international buy-in, and work with our allies (all of whom would very much like to prevent Iran from procuring a nuclear weapon). This was a hastily started war with flimsy goals and seemingly no real urgency. And one of the first things we did as part of our attack was to bomb an elementary school, killing hundreds of children. Critics of this war aren't "hell bent on not preventing the spread of nuclear weapons". We're mostly looking at the situation, and thinking "this is not great".
  - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
    > I think you're missing the crux of the point: why is anything the Trump administration says taken at face value? They have no commitment to the truth, whatsoever. No, I am not. It has nothing to do with Trump his abilities to speak only truth or always lie. IAEA itself reported the 60% figure [1]. [1] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
    - the_gastropod 8mo ago
      This is from May 2025. Before we, remember, "completely obliterated" their nuclear facilities. And again, nothing about this justifies the way this war was initiated.

nozzlegear 8mo ago

> It's only pointless as long as you ignore their legitimate attempts of building nukes. If you don't want them to have nukes, then military action is the only way to stop them unfortunately. Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage so might as well do everything you can to prevent that before it happens. Obama had a perfectly good deal in place with Iran before Trump fucked it all up. Military action was not the only way to stop them.

joe_mamba 8mo ago
>Obama had a perfectly good deal in place with Iran before Trump fucked it all up. What makes you think the Iranian regime is trustworthy to actually respect that deal and not just continue building nukes on the side while using diplomacy to string everyone along that they aren't? You know who else had a deal? Ukraine. Did that deal stop them from being attacked by Russia? Can you stop a military invasion by waving the piece of paper with the deal in the enemy's face? Because that's why nukes are the best insurance policy over deals and why Iran desperately wants them. How can people be so gullible to blindly trust Iran's word thinking a deal means anything?
- the_gastropod 8mo ago
  > What makes you think the Iranian regime is trustworthy I don't think anyone believes the Iranian regime has ever been trustworthy. Probably why part of Obama's deal included inspections, surveillance, and monitoring.
  - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
    Obama’s deal specifically excluded surprise inspections (often referred to as "Anywhere, Anytime"). So, if you are trying to hide something, and you know that the inspection is coming, you will succeed.
    - SimianSci 8mo ago

Forgeties79 8mo ago

The nukes they’ve been “days away” from making since like 1992? The nuclear capacity we bombed “very successfully” months ago?

reliabilityguy 8mo ago
Having 60% enriched Uranium is about 2 weeks from having a nuke.
- Forgeties79 8mo ago
  Man time dilation will get ya
  - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
    Yeah, sure. You can read IAEA report yourself: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
    - Forgeties79 8mo ago
      I legitimately thought you were making a joke and that I was doing a yes-and. Anyway have a good one
    - joe_mamba 8mo ago
      "If those kids could read, they'd be very upset" - Bobby Hill

beezlewax 8mo ago

> Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage Like Israel?

joe_mamba 8mo ago
[flagged]
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
TurdF3rguson 8mo ago
Holding hostages has never been part of Israel's playbook, it's always been very much part of Iran's.
- mothballed 8mo ago
  They held most of gaza hostage, blocking their access to international waters off gaza's own coast, based on the actions of a much smaller subset of those people. That seems about the most classical example of holding hostage as it gets.
  - reliabilityguy 8mo ago
    > based on the actions of a much smaller subset of those people. Interesting way to describe the government the people of Gaza. If Palestinians launch the rockets from Gaza to Israel, why should Israel to continue their trade with them? This is counterintuitive.
    - mothballed 8mo ago
      Who says Israel should trade to them? I completely agree with Israel's right of shutting off Israeli borders and trade with Gaza I'm talking about motion from Gazan waters to directly adjacent international waters, none of which involves touching anything sovereign to Israel.

lukan 8mo ago

"I doubt this. Iran's leadership, like any dictatorship, just wants to be left alone to subjugate its people and enjoy the masses of wealth and power they have." So ... that is why they only cared about themself and did not involve with Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, ..