4 ms·

It was also a bad idea then. They could never have effected regime change. That’s a fantasy that Israel included in its pressure on the US, but which US intelli

by tyre 5mo ago

It was also a bad idea then. They could never have effected regime change. That’s a fantasy that Israel included in its pressure on the US, but which US intelligence deemed highly implausible. There was never a world where this was a good idea. We had a diplomatic agreement that worked, nuked it for no gain, and now there isn’t a viable way to influence Iran. Diplomacy can’t function again because they don’t trust the US (fair, correct.) The IRGC cannot be replaced without a ground invasion, which the US won’t do (fair, correct.) The US can’t unilaterally remove one ton of buried nuclear material from the middle of a hostile state. This was always stupid.

petcat 5mo ago
[flagged]
logicchains 5mo ago
>It was also a bad idea then. They could never have effected regime change They could have if they'd done what Israel wanted and destroyed all the oil infrastructure. The IRGC is heavily dependent on oil revenue for funding its oppressive apparatus; without it hundreds of thousands of militia would go without pay and eventually desert. For whatever reason Trump didn't want to do this; likely not for humanitarian reasons given his nature, but for some reason he seemed to really care what Turkey and Pakistan think, both of whom don't want to be flooded with refugees.
- thisislife2 5mo ago
  > if they'd done what Israel wanted and destroyed all the oil infrastructure. That would have worked. But it is still a stupid idea if you don't cripple and destroy Iran's military capability first as Iran would have also retaliated and destroyed all its Arab neighbour's oil infrastructure too, plunging the world into an economic depression because of the energy crisis it would cause - The Iran War Is Destroying Something More Valuable Than Oil - https://houseofsaud.com/iran-war-refinery-crisis-saudi-aramco/ https://houseofsaud.com/iran-war-refinery-crisis-saudi-aramc...
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > Iran would have also retaliated and destroyed all its Arab neighbour's oil infrastructure too Iran probably couldn't have, not without being intercepted and having its launchers neutralised every time it fired. But Tehran would have kept on credibly threatening to, which would have meant America essentially taking on air defence responsibility for the entire Gulf.
YZF 5mo ago
You might be right on the regime change being fantasy but those things are not predictable and we don't know the details. Where you're definitely wrong is on the "diplomatic agreement that worked". Iran continued to enrich violating the agreement, the agreement was time bound and not indefinite (and would have already expired anyways), and it enabled them to sell oil and raise a lot of money to fuel their wars, missile programs, nuclear programs and other ambitions.
- throwaway534634 5mo ago
  > Where you're definitely wrong is on the "diplomatic agreement that worked". Iran continued to enrich violating the agreement... No, actually it is you who is wrong. Iran absolutely complied with the JCPOA. It is after US withdrew from the agreement that they pursued enrichment further.
  - YZF 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - throwaway534631 5mo ago
      > No Active Bomb-Making (2016–2019): Neither the U.S. intelligence community nor the IAEA found evidence that Iran was spinning secret centrifuges or actively manufacturing a weapon at these sites while the JCPOA was in effect. The traces found were leftover from the pre-2003 weapons program. Thanks. You proved my point. Did you even read the first article you posted? > "...the material in question is probably from a clandestine project that was first discovered in 2005 and reported by the IAEA the next year. ... If the material was from that time period, it would be a safeguards violation but not a violation of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which regulates nuclear activity from 2016. The green salt project was halted in 2004, and while all the documentation was carefully preserved ... there has been no indication of it having been resumed" Your second article is from 2025 and it probably refers to last couple of years.. The US withdrew in 2018... Of course they continued enrichment after that withdrawal. Let me add a bit more: "The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its quarterly report on Iran’s nuclear program June 6 [2018], and, unsurprisingly, the report found that Iran is complying with its commitments under the multilateral deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)." [1] Again. You are wrong on this one! Iran adhered to JCPOA. US pulled out. Iran continued enrichment beyond limits defined by JCPOA as the agreement was dead by then. [1] https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-06-08/iaea-report-confirms-irans-compliance-jcpoa https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-06-08/iaea-report-conf...
parineum 5mo ago
> We had a diplomatic agreement that worked, nuked it for no gain, and now there isn’t a viable way to influence Iran. I see this repeateded a lot but it doesn't follow to me that the facility that was bombed in midnight hammer was created and begun operating after that agreement was cancelled. It seems clear to me that Iran never stopped using that facility. It seems to me that Iran's goal is to develop a nuclear weapon and there isn't a piece of paper that will stop them. I don't really fault them, it's a very sane thing to do to secure your border a la North Korea. I'm not sure there is a non-military way to influence Iran to not develop a nuclear weapon.
- orwin 5mo ago
  That facility was a nuclear research facility for civilian, military and medical use. Note that military doesn't mean weapons. Iran getting nuclear submarine would increase their threat level. In any case, Iran have a fatwa against developing nuclear bombs (a fatwa is a law edicted by a religious leader, and not respecting it would make you sinful and rebellious, and in a theocratic regime, often end in prison). The fatwa isn't reversed yet afaik, but the US killed the mufti who declared it, so I don't know how it applies. But anybody saying Iran was working on a bomb is probably misinformed or lying imho.
  - stale2002 5mo ago
    There isn't a non-military, non bomb use for the amount of Uranium that Iran was enriching up to the levels that they were doing so. All the things that you talked about do not require doing what Iran was doing. Meaning that... the only motivation left would be the 1 single thing that does require that much enrichment to those levels. Hitting this from another angle, it doesn't make any strategic sense as for why Iran would sacrifice all that it is throwing away, just to get some medical research benefits. That would be a poor deal, and Iran isn't stupid.
- watwut 5mo ago
  Iran was entitled to have radio active materia. Pretty much everyone involved says they followed the contract.

by tyre 5mo ago

petcat 5mo ago

[flagged]

logicchains 5mo ago

>It was also a bad idea then. They could never have effected regime change They could have if they'd done what Israel wanted and destroyed all the oil infrastructure. The IRGC is heavily dependent on oil revenue for funding its oppressive apparatus; without it hundreds of thousands of militia would go without pay and eventually desert. For whatever reason Trump didn't want to do this; likely not for humanitarian reasons given his nature, but for some reason he seemed to really care what Turkey and Pakistan think, both of whom don't want to be flooded with refugees.

thisislife2 5mo ago
> if they'd done what Israel wanted and destroyed all the oil infrastructure. That would have worked. But it is still a stupid idea if you don't cripple and destroy Iran's military capability first as Iran would have also retaliated and destroyed all its Arab neighbour's oil infrastructure too, plunging the world into an economic depression because of the energy crisis it would cause - The Iran War Is Destroying Something More Valuable Than Oil - https://houseofsaud.com/iran-war-refinery-crisis-saudi-aramco/ https://houseofsaud.com/iran-war-refinery-crisis-saudi-aramc...
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > Iran would have also retaliated and destroyed all its Arab neighbour's oil infrastructure too Iran probably couldn't have, not without being intercepted and having its launchers neutralised every time it fired. But Tehran would have kept on credibly threatening to, which would have meant America essentially taking on air defence responsibility for the entire Gulf.

YZF 5mo ago

You might be right on the regime change being fantasy but those things are not predictable and we don't know the details. Where you're definitely wrong is on the "diplomatic agreement that worked". Iran continued to enrich violating the agreement, the agreement was time bound and not indefinite (and would have already expired anyways), and it enabled them to sell oil and raise a lot of money to fuel their wars, missile programs, nuclear programs and other ambitions.

throwaway534634 5mo ago
> Where you're definitely wrong is on the "diplomatic agreement that worked". Iran continued to enrich violating the agreement... No, actually it is you who is wrong. Iran absolutely complied with the JCPOA. It is after US withdrew from the agreement that they pursued enrichment further.
- YZF 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - throwaway534631 5mo ago
    > No Active Bomb-Making (2016–2019): Neither the U.S. intelligence community nor the IAEA found evidence that Iran was spinning secret centrifuges or actively manufacturing a weapon at these sites while the JCPOA was in effect. The traces found were leftover from the pre-2003 weapons program. Thanks. You proved my point. Did you even read the first article you posted? > "...the material in question is probably from a clandestine project that was first discovered in 2005 and reported by the IAEA the next year. ... If the material was from that time period, it would be a safeguards violation but not a violation of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which regulates nuclear activity from 2016. The green salt project was halted in 2004, and while all the documentation was carefully preserved ... there has been no indication of it having been resumed" Your second article is from 2025 and it probably refers to last couple of years.. The US withdrew in 2018... Of course they continued enrichment after that withdrawal. Let me add a bit more: "The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its quarterly report on Iran’s nuclear program June 6 [2018], and, unsurprisingly, the report found that Iran is complying with its commitments under the multilateral deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)." [1] Again. You are wrong on this one! Iran adhered to JCPOA. US pulled out. Iran continued enrichment beyond limits defined by JCPOA as the agreement was dead by then. [1] https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-06-08/iaea-report-confirms-irans-compliance-jcpoa https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-06-08/iaea-report-conf...

parineum 5mo ago

> We had a diplomatic agreement that worked, nuked it for no gain, and now there isn’t a viable way to influence Iran. I see this repeateded a lot but it doesn't follow to me that the facility that was bombed in midnight hammer was created and begun operating after that agreement was cancelled. It seems clear to me that Iran never stopped using that facility. It seems to me that Iran's goal is to develop a nuclear weapon and there isn't a piece of paper that will stop them. I don't really fault them, it's a very sane thing to do to secure your border a la North Korea. I'm not sure there is a non-military way to influence Iran to not develop a nuclear weapon.

orwin 5mo ago
That facility was a nuclear research facility for civilian, military and medical use. Note that military doesn't mean weapons. Iran getting nuclear submarine would increase their threat level. In any case, Iran have a fatwa against developing nuclear bombs (a fatwa is a law edicted by a religious leader, and not respecting it would make you sinful and rebellious, and in a theocratic regime, often end in prison). The fatwa isn't reversed yet afaik, but the US killed the mufti who declared it, so I don't know how it applies. But anybody saying Iran was working on a bomb is probably misinformed or lying imho.
- stale2002 5mo ago
  There isn't a non-military, non bomb use for the amount of Uranium that Iran was enriching up to the levels that they were doing so. All the things that you talked about do not require doing what Iran was doing. Meaning that... the only motivation left would be the 1 single thing that does require that much enrichment to those levels. Hitting this from another angle, it doesn't make any strategic sense as for why Iran would sacrifice all that it is throwing away, just to get some medical research benefits. That would be a poor deal, and Iran isn't stupid.
watwut 5mo ago
Iran was entitled to have radio active materia. Pretty much everyone involved says they followed the contract.