4 ms·

Nobody credible said or believed Iran was making nuclear weapons. Iran had made it a fatwa against the Islamic law to develop such weapons and Obama had referen

by antman 4mo ago

Nobody credible said or believed Iran was making nuclear weapons. Iran had made it a fatwa against the Islamic law to develop such weapons and Obama had referenced that. They also dont believe bolivian fishermen could reach the US with stocks of drugs, they dont believe venezuela’s president was a hidden drug kingpin, and they also dont believe that Cuba is a credible threat that needs to be blockaded to the stone age. These are power plays to signal that world dominance is not decaying but in case of Iran it has backfired and pushes China’s narrative as a pillar of stability.

dmix 4mo ago
There is still lots of evidence that Iran started enriching uranium towards weapons grade over the past decade. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64810145 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64810145 Largely a legacy of Trump's sanctions failing to get a nuclear deal the first term and back firing. You'd have to be naive to think they don't want a bomb in the first place before that though. Saddam played the same game where they pretended they just wanted nuclear for energy, even though they were a petrol state... which is why in 1981 Iran helped bomb Iraq's reactors (where Iran teamed up with Israel to do so) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera If Iran didn't believe Iraq's peaceful nuclear intentions, I'm not sure why anyone would believe Iran then buying tons of uranium from Russia was any different. Not to mention building underground lairs to enrich it while also building ICBMs.
- nixon_why69 4mo ago
  The best way to thread the needle I can see was that maintaining highly enriched uranium was a deterrance/bargaining strategy. Doesn't break the fatwa but sends a message. Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight.
  - overfeed 4mo ago
    > Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight. The JCPOA obviated the need for a nuke. It was a reasonable assumption that the US would honor its side of the agreement under the doctrine of continuity. Even in hindsight, you cannot have productive diplomacy without good faith
    - jameshilliard 4mo ago
      > The JCPOA obviated the need for a nuke. Iran really had no need for a nuke in the first place if they weren't constantly provoking the entire region, unless that need is destroying Israel. > Even in hindsight, you cannot have productive diplomacy without good faith Iran never really negotiates in good faith either, the JCPOA didn't really do anything at all to restrict their ballistic missile program and terrorist proxies.
  - jameshilliard 4mo ago
    > Doesn't break the fatwa but sends a message. Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight. I think Israel and probably the US interpreted this tactic as Iran stalling until they Iran had the technology to build a nuclear ICBM.
simianparrot 4mo ago
[flagged]
- cwillu 4mo ago
  Your source doesn't contradict anything he said. “This stockpile could potentially enable Iran to construct as many as 10 nuclear bombs, should it choose to weaponize its program, Grossi told The Associated Press last year.”
  - simianparrot 4mo ago
    There is no other reason to have uranium enriched to that level. None.
    - cwillu 4mo ago
      Your ignorance does not an argument make.
UltraSane 4mo ago
Many countries have nuclear power without any enrichment capability. Iran could try not being a pariah state and buy enriched uranium like many countries do. The only real reason to spend so much money and endure so much hardships for uranium enrichment is if they wanted at least the option to make nuclear weapons.
- solumunus 4mo ago
  They definitely wanted the option, that’s indisputable really.
alsetmusic 4mo ago
The strongest case for developing nuclear weapons is our lack of invasions of nuclear powers. It's funny how he tore up a nuclear arms embargo / agreement and then acted as though they (Iran) were a threat that couldn't be tolerated. Common saying: "They sell us the sickness and then sell us the cure."
- expedition32 4mo ago
  Nuclear weapons have been a strictly self defense capability since 1945 I don't know why the White House is crying about Iran getting them.
  - jameshilliard 4mo ago
    > I don't know why the White House is crying about Iran getting them. How does one not see a problem with terrorists(i.e. the Islamic regime in Iran) getting nuclear weapons?
    - handfuloflight 4mo ago
      After you say why you don't have a problem with the Israeli terrorists having them already.
      - jameshilliard 4mo ago
        > After you say why you don't have a problem with the Israeli terrorists having them already. There are no "Israeli terrorists" in control of Israel's nuclear weapons, the government of Israel is certainly not controlled by terrorists like the Iranian government is. Israel also does not have a policy of destroying Iran, while Iran does have a clear policy of destroying Israel[0]. There's a clear difference in their ideologies as well, the Islamic government of Iran clearly believes in dangerous ideologies like Martyrdom and Jihad(holy war), organizations with these sort of ideological beliefs should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons because typical deterrence strategies like mutually assured destruction are unlikely to be effective. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Iranian_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Irani...
jameshilliard 4mo ago
> Nobody credible said or believed Iran was making nuclear weapons. Then why were they enriching uranium to levels well above what is needed for civilian purposes? You simply don't do that unless you intend to make nuclear weapons at some point. > Iran had made it a fatwa against the Islamic law to develop such weapons and Obama had referenced that. Iran obviously has the ability to lie, and regularly does so.

by antman 4mo ago

dmix 4mo ago

There is still lots of evidence that Iran started enriching uranium towards weapons grade over the past decade. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64810145 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64810145 Largely a legacy of Trump's sanctions failing to get a nuclear deal the first term and back firing. You'd have to be naive to think they don't want a bomb in the first place before that though. Saddam played the same game where they pretended they just wanted nuclear for energy, even though they were a petrol state... which is why in 1981 Iran helped bomb Iraq's reactors (where Iran teamed up with Israel to do so) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera If Iran didn't believe Iraq's peaceful nuclear intentions, I'm not sure why anyone would believe Iran then buying tons of uranium from Russia was any different. Not to mention building underground lairs to enrich it while also building ICBMs.

nixon_why69 4mo ago
The best way to thread the needle I can see was that maintaining highly enriched uranium was a deterrance/bargaining strategy. Doesn't break the fatwa but sends a message. Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight.
- overfeed 4mo ago
  > Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight. The JCPOA obviated the need for a nuke. It was a reasonable assumption that the US would honor its side of the agreement under the doctrine of continuity. Even in hindsight, you cannot have productive diplomacy without good faith
  - jameshilliard 4mo ago
    > The JCPOA obviated the need for a nuke. Iran really had no need for a nuke in the first place if they weren't constantly provoking the entire region, unless that need is destroying Israel. > Even in hindsight, you cannot have productive diplomacy without good faith Iran never really negotiates in good faith either, the JCPOA didn't really do anything at all to restrict their ballistic missile program and terrorist proxies.
- jameshilliard 4mo ago
  > Doesn't break the fatwa but sends a message. Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight. I think Israel and probably the US interpreted this tactic as Iran stalling until they Iran had the technology to build a nuclear ICBM.

simianparrot 4mo ago

[flagged]

cwillu 4mo ago
Your source doesn't contradict anything he said. “This stockpile could potentially enable Iran to construct as many as 10 nuclear bombs, should it choose to weaponize its program, Grossi told The Associated Press last year.”
- simianparrot 4mo ago
  There is no other reason to have uranium enriched to that level. None.
  - cwillu 4mo ago
    Your ignorance does not an argument make.

UltraSane 4mo ago

Many countries have nuclear power without any enrichment capability. Iran could try not being a pariah state and buy enriched uranium like many countries do. The only real reason to spend so much money and endure so much hardships for uranium enrichment is if they wanted at least the option to make nuclear weapons.

solumunus 4mo ago
They definitely wanted the option, that’s indisputable really.

alsetmusic 4mo ago

The strongest case for developing nuclear weapons is our lack of invasions of nuclear powers. It's funny how he tore up a nuclear arms embargo / agreement and then acted as though they (Iran) were a threat that couldn't be tolerated. Common saying: "They sell us the sickness and then sell us the cure."

expedition32 4mo ago
Nuclear weapons have been a strictly self defense capability since 1945 I don't know why the White House is crying about Iran getting them.
- jameshilliard 4mo ago
  > I don't know why the White House is crying about Iran getting them. How does one not see a problem with terrorists(i.e. the Islamic regime in Iran) getting nuclear weapons?
  - handfuloflight 4mo ago
    After you say why you don't have a problem with the Israeli terrorists having them already.
    - jameshilliard 4mo ago
      > After you say why you don't have a problem with the Israeli terrorists having them already. There are no "Israeli terrorists" in control of Israel's nuclear weapons, the government of Israel is certainly not controlled by terrorists like the Iranian government is. Israel also does not have a policy of destroying Iran, while Iran does have a clear policy of destroying Israel[0]. There's a clear difference in their ideologies as well, the Islamic government of Iran clearly believes in dangerous ideologies like Martyrdom and Jihad(holy war), organizations with these sort of ideological beliefs should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons because typical deterrence strategies like mutually assured destruction are unlikely to be effective. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Iranian_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Irani...

jameshilliard 4mo ago

> Nobody credible said or believed Iran was making nuclear weapons. Then why were they enriching uranium to levels well above what is needed for civilian purposes? You simply don't do that unless you intend to make nuclear weapons at some point. > Iran had made it a fatwa against the Islamic law to develop such weapons and Obama had referenced that. Iran obviously has the ability to lie, and regularly does so.