3 ms·

Not that you care, but for others that might, the nuclear fuel offer was reported by the NYT and other outlets, including The Economist, that can't in any way b

by avazhi 6mo ago

Not that you care, but for others that might, the nuclear fuel offer was reported by the NYT and other outlets, including The Economist, that can't in any way be accused of pandering to the Trump admin. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-wa... > At one point, they offered the Iranians free nuclear fuel for the life of their program — a test of whether Tehran’s insistence on enrichment was truly about civilian energy or about preserving the ability to build a bomb. The Iranians rejected the offer, calling it an assault on their dignity.

shimman 6mo ago
Yes, why would Iran reject an offer from a government that tore up previous agreements, had their leaders assassinated, had sanctions inflicted upon them for decades, and even had chemical weapons used against them provided by the same government that wants to make a deal with them now? Why would they reject such an offer from obviously good faith actors, are they stupid?
- avazhi 6mo ago
  > Yes, why would Iran reject an offer from a government Because they were trying to get nukes so they could use them against Israel and America, as they've promised to do for decades. I believe the Americans did what is called calling one's bluff. The ayatollahs were never a serious government. FAFO, as they say.
  - shimman 6mo ago
    Every country on this Earth will now seek nukes because of the actions we see on display. Nuclear proliferation is the only way to practice sovereignty, and nuclear proliferation will surely lead to the destruction of humanity as it becomes increasingly unlikely that a nuclear exchange won't happen sometime within the next 10,000 years. FA and FO indeed. Oh and dedollarization is now something that may happen within 5 years and not like 50 years. Oh and 100s of millions will needlessly suffer and die because of these actions, but seeing how little you value human life in your other comments I'm going to stop myself here and wish you a good existence.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
DANmode 6mo ago
You mean the same NYT that reported weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I had a longer comment written, but, no, that alone isn’t enough. It has little to do with this specific administration, and everything to do with the defense contractor machine. or are we calling them war contractors now? Anyway.

by avazhi 6mo ago

shimman 6mo ago

Yes, why would Iran reject an offer from a government that tore up previous agreements, had their leaders assassinated, had sanctions inflicted upon them for decades, and even had chemical weapons used against them provided by the same government that wants to make a deal with them now? Why would they reject such an offer from obviously good faith actors, are they stupid?

avazhi 6mo ago
> Yes, why would Iran reject an offer from a government Because they were trying to get nukes so they could use them against Israel and America, as they've promised to do for decades. I believe the Americans did what is called calling one's bluff. The ayatollahs were never a serious government. FAFO, as they say.
- shimman 6mo ago
  Every country on this Earth will now seek nukes because of the actions we see on display. Nuclear proliferation is the only way to practice sovereignty, and nuclear proliferation will surely lead to the destruction of humanity as it becomes increasingly unlikely that a nuclear exchange won't happen sometime within the next 10,000 years. FA and FO indeed. Oh and dedollarization is now something that may happen within 5 years and not like 50 years. Oh and 100s of millions will needlessly suffer and die because of these actions, but seeing how little you value human life in your other comments I'm going to stop myself here and wish you a good existence.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]

DANmode 6mo ago

You mean the same NYT that reported weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I had a longer comment written, but, no, that alone isn’t enough. It has little to do with this specific administration, and everything to do with the defense contractor machine. or are we calling them war contractors now? Anyway.