3 ms·

> Although the war in Iran is very obviously justified, Wait, what now?

by mcphage 6mo ago

ericmay 6mo ago
Can't have another North Korea sitting in the Middle East with control over so much oil supply. Don't want Gulf States to go and get nuclear weapons in response to Iran getting them (nuclear non-proliferation).
- Planktonne 6mo ago
  That's not the justification for the current war; the White House [0] claims that Iran's nuclear capabilities were 'obliterated' last year. [0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/06/experts-agree-irans-nuclear-facilities-have-been-obliterated/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/06/experts-agree-ir...
  - ericmay 6mo ago
    I'm not justifying the war on White House press releases. The additional justifications though just strengthen the need. Separately it's a poor argument to say well Iran's nuclear capabilities were obliterated (they were certainly damaged if nothing else) therefore further attacks are unjustified when Iran could build up missile defense, missile attack, and drone capabilities and make a future incursion to stop their nuclear program impossible without extreme destruction to the Middle East and the rest of global trade. Which, you know, was what they were actually doing. Hence the missile attacks. We just caught them before we couldn't actually do much about it without significant loss of life and equipment.
- atmavatar 6mo ago
  Keep in mind that there's only a risk of Iran gaining nuclear weapons in the first place because Trump in his first term reneged on the deal where we had inspectors in Iran to ensure they weren't making them. Random, unprovoked attacks by other countries only underscores Iran's need to build nuclear weapons. Mission accomplished.
  - ericmay 6mo ago
    This is false because Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon before Trump ever came into office. the JCPOA was signed under Obama. It wouldn't have existed had Iran not already been pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran can obviously hide nuclear weapons and uranium enrichment activities from the inspectors. Unless of course you believe the US intelligence agency and inspection agencies are capable of perfect intelligence. :) > Random, unprovoked attacks by other countries only underscores Iran's need to build nuclear weapons. Mission accomplished. Doesn't make sense. You're ignoring Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and other geostrategic concerns. Even if Iran wasn't trying to build a nuclear weapon they were stockpiling missiles such that they could seize control over the Straight of Hormuz and ensure tolls were paid to their autocratic regime. It's beyond bizarre to me that someone can, presumably in an honest way, think that this war just randomly started and was unprovoked. Incompatible world views.
    - cholantesh 6mo ago
      More like you are ignoring the US' prodigious client in the region running amok.
      - ericmay 6mo ago
        No I'm not ignoring Israel, I'm just evaluating Israel in context. Have they done shitty things? FOR SURE. Does that excuse Iran and Hamas with respect to the October massacre? No absolutely not. But play stupid games, win stupid prizes. On the other hand, the US just forced Israel to the negotiating table with Lebanon with a single tweet. Hopefully Israel and Lebanon can work together to rid themselves of Hezbollah and restore peace. We know the UN peacekeepers certainly couldn't help here.
        cholantesh 6mo ago
        You effectively are, none of the groups you listed sprang from the ether, summoned by Islamofascist wizardry, they exist as responses to Israeli conduct in the region, something made structurally possible almost entirely through US patronage. >Hopefully Israel and Lebanon can work together to rid themselves of Hezbollah and restore peace.We know the UN peacekeepers certainly couldn't help here. Case in point - the historic collaboration between Israel and Lebanon was what created the context in which Hezbollah first came into existence, and UN peacekeepers have largely been ineffective there because the IDF kept firing on them. The ceasefire agreed to a week ago doesn't push for Israeli withdrawal in any term or really any other measures for accountability on their part or the US', so 'peace' in this context is effectively just capitulation to both those parties' hegemony, I suppose because it's a law of nature or something.
- legitster 6mo ago
  The JCPOA was very effective until Trump cancelled it without any consolations and upped sanctions for no reasons (Iran was cooperating!) The progress of their enrichment program is purely a product of this administration's failed diplomacy. Comparing Iran to North Korea is something someone with no actual understanding of Iran would do. Iran is not a hermit kingdom.
  - ericmay 6mo ago
    > Comparing Iran to North Korea is something someone with no actual understanding of Iran would do. Iran is not a hermit kingdom. That was your comparison, not mine. My comparison was that once they obtain a nuclear weapon, there's nothing we can do anymore. They can obtain more, and then use them as a threat to tax the Straight, further enriching their regime, &c. That's what has happened to North Korea (minus the strategic position and of course it's slightly different due to China). The JCPOA wasn't effective for two reasons: 1. We weren't getting the cooperation we needed in the first place to examine nuclear sites. 2. We shouldn't have to pay off Iran to not get nuclear weapons. Why do they get to be treated differently than any other country?
    - legitster 6mo ago
      Those JCPOA concerns are pure Fox New lore: 1. We had anytime/anywhere access to their nuclear facilities and 24 day access to any square inch of their country. They never violated that part of the agreement and it's also silly to think intelligence didn't already know where all the facilities were. 2. The payments were a trivial part of the deal. It's especially ironic given this administration keeps offering payments to end the current conflict. The reality is any deal we sign today is going to be substantially worse in every way for us than the JCPOA was. > Why do they get to be treated differently than any other country? This is the crux of the thing though. North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, and even South Africa all had successful and clandestine nuclear programs without any military intervention. Going to war with Iran is completely arbitrary - there is no direct threat to the US, and we did it without any cooperation with any of the countries actually dependent on Gulf oil.
- mcphage 6mo ago
  Do you think this war is (a) likely to convince Iran to not pursue nuclear weapons, or (b) convince Iran that nuclear weapons are a necessity for their continued existence? I'm pretty sure it's (b), and that between Russia's attack on Ukraine, and the US's attack on Iran, all it will do is convince the rest of the world that they absolutely need nuclear weapons.
  - ericmay 6mo ago
    Iran was already convinced that they needed to pursue nuclear weapons. They were still doing so under the JCPOA and even in cases where countries offered free, unlimited material for civilian nuclear reactors Iran refused. Why refuse? It's obvious. They shouldn't have needed a JCPOA anyway - why was Iran pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place? The US didn't attack Iran in the early or mid-2000s, for example. Do we have a JCPOA style agreement with Brazil, or Thailand, or Italy? No. They just, as good faith partners in nuclear non-proliferation simply don't pursue nuclear weapons. Why is Iran different? Why does the rest of the world have to pay them to not pursue nuclear weapons?
    - mcphage 6mo ago
      > They shouldn't have needed a JCPOA anyway - why was Iran pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place? This current war is why.
      - ericmay 6mo ago
        We wouldn't have a war if Iran wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons. It's post-hoc justification. The JCPOA excuse can quietly and safely be discarded. It's a bad argument.
        cholantesh 6mo ago
        Nowhere near as bad as the question-begging premise your comment leads with.
        mcphage 6mo ago
ap99 6mo ago
[flagged]
- ericmay 6mo ago
  I know. I think Trump should be in jail, particularly over Jan 6th. But he's currently the President and I'm not going to stoop to reality TV level analysis of global events just because I don't like the guy. If he does something that I think is good, then I think it's good. He doesn't dictate my political opinions. If he, or anyone else aligns with me, they're right. If they don't, respectfully, they're wrong. But I set those opinions and hold them.
- SirFatty 6mo ago
  "Trump says XYZ so XYZ is bad!!!" That might have to do with the fact that Trump is a conniving, deceitful, lying piece of shit? Just maybe.
- guzfip 6mo ago
  > Trump could say we all should get more exercise and folks would say somehow exercise is bad for you. No I’d say he’s a fat hypocrite lol. Nothing more ironic then fat dementia patients trying to lecture you on health. Or junkies, or Turkish pill hucksters.

> Although the war in Iran is very obviously justified, Wait, what now?

by mcphage 6mo ago

> Although the war in Iran is very obviously justified, Wait, what now?

Can't have another North Korea sitting in the Middle East with control over so much oil supply. Don't want Gulf States to go and get nuclear weapons in response to Iran getting them (nuclear non-proliferation).

Planktonne 6mo ago
That's not the justification for the current war; the White House [0] claims that Iran's nuclear capabilities were 'obliterated' last year. [0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/06/experts-agree-irans-nuclear-facilities-have-been-obliterated/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/06/experts-agree-ir...
- ericmay 6mo ago
  I'm not justifying the war on White House press releases. The additional justifications though just strengthen the need. Separately it's a poor argument to say well Iran's nuclear capabilities were obliterated (they were certainly damaged if nothing else) therefore further attacks are unjustified when Iran could build up missile defense, missile attack, and drone capabilities and make a future incursion to stop their nuclear program impossible without extreme destruction to the Middle East and the rest of global trade. Which, you know, was what they were actually doing. Hence the missile attacks. We just caught them before we couldn't actually do much about it without significant loss of life and equipment.
atmavatar 6mo ago
Keep in mind that there's only a risk of Iran gaining nuclear weapons in the first place because Trump in his first term reneged on the deal where we had inspectors in Iran to ensure they weren't making them. Random, unprovoked attacks by other countries only underscores Iran's need to build nuclear weapons. Mission accomplished.
- ericmay 6mo ago
  This is false because Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon before Trump ever came into office. the JCPOA was signed under Obama. It wouldn't have existed had Iran not already been pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran can obviously hide nuclear weapons and uranium enrichment activities from the inspectors. Unless of course you believe the US intelligence agency and inspection agencies are capable of perfect intelligence. :) > Random, unprovoked attacks by other countries only underscores Iran's need to build nuclear weapons. Mission accomplished. Doesn't make sense. You're ignoring Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and other geostrategic concerns. Even if Iran wasn't trying to build a nuclear weapon they were stockpiling missiles such that they could seize control over the Straight of Hormuz and ensure tolls were paid to their autocratic regime. It's beyond bizarre to me that someone can, presumably in an honest way, think that this war just randomly started and was unprovoked. Incompatible world views.
  - cholantesh 6mo ago
    More like you are ignoring the US' prodigious client in the region running amok.
    - ericmay 6mo ago
      No I'm not ignoring Israel, I'm just evaluating Israel in context. Have they done shitty things? FOR SURE. Does that excuse Iran and Hamas with respect to the October massacre? No absolutely not. But play stupid games, win stupid prizes. On the other hand, the US just forced Israel to the negotiating table with Lebanon with a single tweet. Hopefully Israel and Lebanon can work together to rid themselves of Hezbollah and restore peace. We know the UN peacekeepers certainly couldn't help here.
      - cholantesh 6mo ago
        You effectively are, none of the groups you listed sprang from the ether, summoned by Islamofascist wizardry, they exist as responses to Israeli conduct in the region, something made structurally possible almost entirely through US patronage. >Hopefully Israel and Lebanon can work together to rid themselves of Hezbollah and restore peace.We know the UN peacekeepers certainly couldn't help here. Case in point - the historic collaboration between Israel and Lebanon was what created the context in which Hezbollah first came into existence, and UN peacekeepers have largely been ineffective there because the IDF kept firing on them. The ceasefire agreed to a week ago doesn't push for Israeli withdrawal in any term or really any other measures for accountability on their part or the US', so 'peace' in this context is effectively just capitulation to both those parties' hegemony, I suppose because it's a law of nature or something.
legitster 6mo ago
The JCPOA was very effective until Trump cancelled it without any consolations and upped sanctions for no reasons (Iran was cooperating!) The progress of their enrichment program is purely a product of this administration's failed diplomacy. Comparing Iran to North Korea is something someone with no actual understanding of Iran would do. Iran is not a hermit kingdom.
- ericmay 6mo ago
  > Comparing Iran to North Korea is something someone with no actual understanding of Iran would do. Iran is not a hermit kingdom. That was your comparison, not mine. My comparison was that once they obtain a nuclear weapon, there's nothing we can do anymore. They can obtain more, and then use them as a threat to tax the Straight, further enriching their regime, &c. That's what has happened to North Korea (minus the strategic position and of course it's slightly different due to China). The JCPOA wasn't effective for two reasons: 1. We weren't getting the cooperation we needed in the first place to examine nuclear sites. 2. We shouldn't have to pay off Iran to not get nuclear weapons. Why do they get to be treated differently than any other country?
  - legitster 6mo ago
    Those JCPOA concerns are pure Fox New lore: 1. We had anytime/anywhere access to their nuclear facilities and 24 day access to any square inch of their country. They never violated that part of the agreement and it's also silly to think intelligence didn't already know where all the facilities were. 2. The payments were a trivial part of the deal. It's especially ironic given this administration keeps offering payments to end the current conflict. The reality is any deal we sign today is going to be substantially worse in every way for us than the JCPOA was. > Why do they get to be treated differently than any other country? This is the crux of the thing though. North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, and even South Africa all had successful and clandestine nuclear programs without any military intervention. Going to war with Iran is completely arbitrary - there is no direct threat to the US, and we did it without any cooperation with any of the countries actually dependent on Gulf oil.
mcphage 6mo ago
Do you think this war is (a) likely to convince Iran to not pursue nuclear weapons, or (b) convince Iran that nuclear weapons are a necessity for their continued existence? I'm pretty sure it's (b), and that between Russia's attack on Ukraine, and the US's attack on Iran, all it will do is convince the rest of the world that they absolutely need nuclear weapons.
- ericmay 6mo ago
  Iran was already convinced that they needed to pursue nuclear weapons. They were still doing so under the JCPOA and even in cases where countries offered free, unlimited material for civilian nuclear reactors Iran refused. Why refuse? It's obvious. They shouldn't have needed a JCPOA anyway - why was Iran pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place? The US didn't attack Iran in the early or mid-2000s, for example. Do we have a JCPOA style agreement with Brazil, or Thailand, or Italy? No. They just, as good faith partners in nuclear non-proliferation simply don't pursue nuclear weapons. Why is Iran different? Why does the rest of the world have to pay them to not pursue nuclear weapons?
  - mcphage 6mo ago
    > They shouldn't have needed a JCPOA anyway - why was Iran pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place? This current war is why.
    - ericmay 6mo ago
      We wouldn't have a war if Iran wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons. It's post-hoc justification. The JCPOA excuse can quietly and safely be discarded. It's a bad argument.
      - cholantesh 6mo ago
        Nowhere near as bad as the question-begging premise your comment leads with.
      - mcphage 6mo ago

ap99 6mo ago

[flagged]

ericmay 6mo ago
I know. I think Trump should be in jail, particularly over Jan 6th. But he's currently the President and I'm not going to stoop to reality TV level analysis of global events just because I don't like the guy. If he does something that I think is good, then I think it's good. He doesn't dictate my political opinions. If he, or anyone else aligns with me, they're right. If they don't, respectfully, they're wrong. But I set those opinions and hold them.
SirFatty 6mo ago
"Trump says XYZ so XYZ is bad!!!" That might have to do with the fact that Trump is a conniving, deceitful, lying piece of shit? Just maybe.
guzfip 6mo ago
> Trump could say we all should get more exercise and folks would say somehow exercise is bad for you. No I’d say he’s a fat hypocrite lol. Nothing more ironic then fat dementia patients trying to lecture you on health. Or junkies, or Turkish pill hucksters.