4 ms·

If we accept your premise, the current war has made us less safe, because we've had previous, stronger nuclear deals that have now been torn up in a failed atte

by rconti 22d ago

If we accept your premise, the current war has made us less safe, because we've had previous, stronger nuclear deals that have now been torn up in a failed attempt to replace their leader with someone more favorable to the US.

ericmay 22d ago
Iran probably wasn't following the JCPOA, denied inspectors access to certain sites, and you'd also have to say you 100% trust American intelligence to verify that Iran isn't building a nuclear weapon in secret and if you want to do that I've got a war to sell you in Iraq. Separately that doesn't resolve the other issues, funding militant groups, &c.
- dalyons 22d ago
  Do you think in the current situation they are more or less likely to try for a nuke than before?
  - ericmay 22d ago
    I don't think there's any change. But I think it's less possible.
    - vjvjvjvjghv 22d ago
      I think they are more motivated than ever and other countries will follow. North Korea shows that Trump will kiss the ass of countries that have nuclear weapons, no matter how bad they are. And he will kick around countries that don’t have them. If I were Iran, I would put every possible effort into obtaining nuclear weapons. Probably from Trump’s best friend Kim Jong Un.
      - ericmay 22d ago
        > and other countries will follow You sound gleeful about the idea of nuclear proliferation. It's unfortunate that so many have stopped caring about the institutions and liberal world order we created. Oh well. If/once Iran gets one we'll give one to Saudi Arabia at least and make sure Israel's program is well supported. Then we can make sure Germany has them and Poland too if they want them. Korea and Japan will also get the green light. Anyone who opposes China/Russia will can get access to then and we can add a dozen or so countries to the nuclear armed states list. Why not?
        m4rtink 22d ago
        Most of the countrues you name would be totally insane if they are not already running clendestine nuclear wepons programs, especially South Korea & Japan. They are not going to wait for uncertain handouts in the future.
        vjvjvjvjghv 22d ago
        I am not gleeful at all about nuclear proliferation. Quite the opposite. It looks to me like the world order that has kept the western hemisphere peaceful and prosperous over the last 70 years is falling apart. And if AI and robotics take off, it's possible our capitalist model will also fall apart. Re: nuclear weapons. If the US gives up the role of protecting other friendly nations and NATO isn't viewed as reliable anymore, it makes sense to develop nuclear weapons. As a German I am starting to wonder if we should develop our own just in case Putin gets some ideas. And I am sure Japan and South Korea are having similar thoughts.
        ericmay 22d ago
        > I am not gleeful at all about nuclear proliferation. Quite the opposite. It looks to me like the world order that has kept the western hemisphere peaceful and prosperous over the last 70 years is falling apart. And if AI and robotics take off, it's possible our capitalist model will also fall apart. Part of that preservation means a safe and stable Middle East and more countries not acquiring nuclear weapons. You simply cannot “negotiate” with Iran here. It’s no different than when Europeans (rightfully in my view) say there’s no negotiating with Putin and then go and complain about the US sending delegates to Russia trying to figure something out no matter how half-brained the Trump administration might be.
    - etchalon 22d ago
      There's zero evidence its less possible, including counter evidence it remains possible because we keep being told we have to attack Iran to prevent them from attaining a nuclear weapon. So apparently, we've yet to do anything to prevent them from doing it. We've just killed children.
      - ericmay 22d ago
        > We've just killed children. They killed more than 30,000 of their own people including children and support terrorist regimes in multiple countries that also kill children. > There's zero evidence its less possible On the other hand we bombed the nuclear facilities so what increase in nuclear weapons capability do they have that you are thinking about here? If there's something that has changed I'd be curious to read about it or your thoughts since that would change my opinion.
        etchalon 22d ago
        So your argument is its cool that we killed children because they've also killed children? Hell of a take. The evidence we bombed their nuclear facilities is essentially this administration telling us we bombed their nuclear facilities. This administration does not have a track record of providing the public with honest assessments of their success. If we've successfully stopped them from developing a nuclear weapon, which was stated as the point of our preemptive aggression, I'd need a very good reason why we continue to spend billions attacking them.
        ericmay 22d ago
        > So your argument is its cool that we killed children because they've also killed children? Hell of a take. No my take is we do it by accident and they do it on purpose and at a much larger scale and instead of pearl clutching about the US doing it on accident you should be pearl clutching about Iran doing it. I didn’t bring it up, but anytime someone brings up this whole “US killed kids” I’m happy to remind everyone that Iran is far worse. > The evidence we bombed their nuclear facilities is essentially this administration telling us we bombed their nuclear facilities. So? Do you not believe anything anyone says unless you see it for yourself? > If we've successfully stopped them from developing a nuclear weapon, which was stated as the point of our preemptive aggression, I'd need a very good reason why we continue to spend billions attacking them. Stopping the development of a nuclear weapon is an important goal but not the only one. We keep defending ourselves because they keep doing things like launching rockets at Kuwait, or shooting at American ships, or supporting those committing genocide or murder in Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Yemen. There is a very simple solution. Iran stops funding these groups, stops murdering their own people, stop launching rockets, and stops trying to build nuclear weapons. Once they do that and behave responsibility like just about every other country on the planet there aren’t any problems. Why is it that they can’t just stop doing these things?
- SimianSci 22d ago
  Using your reasoning, you can basically throw out any structured system that doesn't comply with your own untrustworthy feelings of security. You can essentially point at any shadow within the borders of Iran and claim there are hidden actors conspiring towards your undoing. What aside from their total annihilation or subjugation would ever convince you of your (Israel's) safety?
  - ericmay 22d ago
    But using your own reasoning then Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so they are also throwing out a structured system that doesn't comply with their own feelings.
    - cdmckay 22d ago
      There’s zero evidence Iran was developing nuclear weapons
      - nekusar 22d ago
        Then I have some Siemanns Uranium Hexafluoride centrifuges for sale. Just have to come to Natanz, Iran! They might have blown up due to the Israeli malware incident.
- mmooss 22d ago
  > Iran probably wasn't following the JCPOA When are you talking about and what is that based on? It was the US that withdrew; the other countries continued. US intelligence concluded that Iran had no nuclear weapons program (or maybe, no active one; I don't recall). > you'd also have to say you 100% trust American intelligence to verify Nope, the plan was for the IEA to do their thing with on-the-ground inspectors, sensors, etc. As just one example, nuclear materials leak radiation and they can find indications of it in air, soil, etc., around faciltiies. Edit: Also, many other countries were involved and looking closely, including European powers and Israel.
  - ericmay 22d ago
    > When are you talking about and what is that based on? It was the US that withdrew; the other countries continued. US intelligence concluded that Iran had no nuclear weapons program (or maybe, no active one; I don't recall). They'd just move the research to clandestine or military facilities. They're not stupid. Countries like Iran know how to play these games and they use our own legal mechanisms against us all the time. Separately we shouldn't have to have a JCPOA in the first place, they can just not pursue nuclear weapons like almost every other country on the planet.
    - mmooss 22d ago
      It's not based on anything, then. > we shouldn't have to have a JCPOA in the first place, they can just not pursue nuclear weapons like almost every other country on the planet. Other countries do pursue and have nuclear weapons. Iran has not yet created a full nuclear weapons program - or hadn't before the current war. Iran, being under constant threat from the US and Israel, with open calls to attack Iran for decades; seeing two neighbors recently deposed by the US (Iraq and Afghanistan); and having had their own government deposed and replaced by a US-friendly one (Mosaddegh in 1953); under constant threat from neighbors and the region (Iraq invaded in the 1980s, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states are open enemies, Israel of course); may believe that they need nuclear weapons to survive. Is there another country in a similar position, with the resources to develop nuclear weapons, that doesn't have them? North Korea and Israel both made that choice in similar circumstances. The US 'nuclear umbrella' covers its allies around the world, a very effective non-proliferation tool. Otherwise, I imagine South Korea, Japan, many NATO countries would build them - there is already discussion of it in the former two countries.
- mikem170 22d ago
  > Iran probably wasn't following the JCPOA Source?
  - ericmay 22d ago
    They deny access to “military sites” where nuclear research is done. I mean it’s not like they’re stupid or something.
    - mikem170 22d ago
      I don't know how you got to "Iran probably wasn't following the treaty", when their adhereance to the JCPOA was certified by the U.S. (twice by the Trump administration [0][1]), until Trump wanted to renogiate, withdrawing and re-imposing sanctions in 2018. Everything I found says that the Iranians followed the treaty until they withdrew in 2021. You mentioned military sites... I wondered if the IAEA ever requested access to military sites? They were entitled to do so, under the JCPOA. I couldn't find anything in a quick search I just did. In your response above, you seem to imply that the Iranians may have already sneaked nuclear matarial to military sites. But the The IAEA found no evidence of that, at least as of 2025, well after the treaty, as per this summary report: > Iran held enriched uranium at all three main nuclear sites: Natanz, Fordow, and Esfahan. There are no indications that Iran moved stocks outside of these three sites [2] Once again, do you have sources for what you are saying, that the Iranians weren't following the treaty while it was in effect, or that there were military sites where they were hiding nuclear research? I'm not finding any. Or is this just an opinion, or a guess? I would say that one must be careful, those who profit in some way from war always exaggerate the enemy. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/19/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-administration-approves-agreement-but-review-looms https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/19/iran-nuclear-d... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/us/politics/trump-iran-nuclear-deal-recertify.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/us/politics/trump-iran-nu... [2] https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/analysis-of-iaea-iran-verification-and-monitoring-report-may-2025 https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/analysis-of-iaea-iran-v...
      - ericmay 22d ago

by rconti 22d ago

ericmay 22d ago

Iran probably wasn't following the JCPOA, denied inspectors access to certain sites, and you'd also have to say you 100% trust American intelligence to verify that Iran isn't building a nuclear weapon in secret and if you want to do that I've got a war to sell you in Iraq. Separately that doesn't resolve the other issues, funding militant groups, &c.

dalyons 22d ago
Do you think in the current situation they are more or less likely to try for a nuke than before?
- ericmay 22d ago
  I don't think there's any change. But I think it's less possible.
  - vjvjvjvjghv 22d ago
    I think they are more motivated than ever and other countries will follow. North Korea shows that Trump will kiss the ass of countries that have nuclear weapons, no matter how bad they are. And he will kick around countries that don’t have them. If I were Iran, I would put every possible effort into obtaining nuclear weapons. Probably from Trump’s best friend Kim Jong Un.
    - ericmay 22d ago
      > and other countries will follow You sound gleeful about the idea of nuclear proliferation. It's unfortunate that so many have stopped caring about the institutions and liberal world order we created. Oh well. If/once Iran gets one we'll give one to Saudi Arabia at least and make sure Israel's program is well supported. Then we can make sure Germany has them and Poland too if they want them. Korea and Japan will also get the green light. Anyone who opposes China/Russia will can get access to then and we can add a dozen or so countries to the nuclear armed states list. Why not?
      - m4rtink 22d ago
        Most of the countrues you name would be totally insane if they are not already running clendestine nuclear wepons programs, especially South Korea & Japan. They are not going to wait for uncertain handouts in the future.
      - vjvjvjvjghv 22d ago
        I am not gleeful at all about nuclear proliferation. Quite the opposite. It looks to me like the world order that has kept the western hemisphere peaceful and prosperous over the last 70 years is falling apart. And if AI and robotics take off, it's possible our capitalist model will also fall apart. Re: nuclear weapons. If the US gives up the role of protecting other friendly nations and NATO isn't viewed as reliable anymore, it makes sense to develop nuclear weapons. As a German I am starting to wonder if we should develop our own just in case Putin gets some ideas. And I am sure Japan and South Korea are having similar thoughts.
        ericmay 22d ago
        > I am not gleeful at all about nuclear proliferation. Quite the opposite. It looks to me like the world order that has kept the western hemisphere peaceful and prosperous over the last 70 years is falling apart. And if AI and robotics take off, it's possible our capitalist model will also fall apart. Part of that preservation means a safe and stable Middle East and more countries not acquiring nuclear weapons. You simply cannot “negotiate” with Iran here. It’s no different than when Europeans (rightfully in my view) say there’s no negotiating with Putin and then go and complain about the US sending delegates to Russia trying to figure something out no matter how half-brained the Trump administration might be.
  - etchalon 22d ago
    There's zero evidence its less possible, including counter evidence it remains possible because we keep being told we have to attack Iran to prevent them from attaining a nuclear weapon. So apparently, we've yet to do anything to prevent them from doing it. We've just killed children.
    - ericmay 22d ago
      > We've just killed children. They killed more than 30,000 of their own people including children and support terrorist regimes in multiple countries that also kill children. > There's zero evidence its less possible On the other hand we bombed the nuclear facilities so what increase in nuclear weapons capability do they have that you are thinking about here? If there's something that has changed I'd be curious to read about it or your thoughts since that would change my opinion.
      - etchalon 22d ago
        So your argument is its cool that we killed children because they've also killed children? Hell of a take. The evidence we bombed their nuclear facilities is essentially this administration telling us we bombed their nuclear facilities. This administration does not have a track record of providing the public with honest assessments of their success. If we've successfully stopped them from developing a nuclear weapon, which was stated as the point of our preemptive aggression, I'd need a very good reason why we continue to spend billions attacking them.
        ericmay 22d ago
        > So your argument is its cool that we killed children because they've also killed children? Hell of a take. No my take is we do it by accident and they do it on purpose and at a much larger scale and instead of pearl clutching about the US doing it on accident you should be pearl clutching about Iran doing it. I didn’t bring it up, but anytime someone brings up this whole “US killed kids” I’m happy to remind everyone that Iran is far worse. > The evidence we bombed their nuclear facilities is essentially this administration telling us we bombed their nuclear facilities. So? Do you not believe anything anyone says unless you see it for yourself? > If we've successfully stopped them from developing a nuclear weapon, which was stated as the point of our preemptive aggression, I'd need a very good reason why we continue to spend billions attacking them. Stopping the development of a nuclear weapon is an important goal but not the only one. We keep defending ourselves because they keep doing things like launching rockets at Kuwait, or shooting at American ships, or supporting those committing genocide or murder in Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Yemen. There is a very simple solution. Iran stops funding these groups, stops murdering their own people, stop launching rockets, and stops trying to build nuclear weapons. Once they do that and behave responsibility like just about every other country on the planet there aren’t any problems. Why is it that they can’t just stop doing these things?
SimianSci 22d ago
Using your reasoning, you can basically throw out any structured system that doesn't comply with your own untrustworthy feelings of security. You can essentially point at any shadow within the borders of Iran and claim there are hidden actors conspiring towards your undoing. What aside from their total annihilation or subjugation would ever convince you of your (Israel's) safety?
- ericmay 22d ago
  But using your own reasoning then Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so they are also throwing out a structured system that doesn't comply with their own feelings.
  - cdmckay 22d ago
    There’s zero evidence Iran was developing nuclear weapons
    - nekusar 22d ago
      Then I have some Siemanns Uranium Hexafluoride centrifuges for sale. Just have to come to Natanz, Iran! They might have blown up due to the Israeli malware incident.
mmooss 22d ago
> Iran probably wasn't following the JCPOA When are you talking about and what is that based on? It was the US that withdrew; the other countries continued. US intelligence concluded that Iran had no nuclear weapons program (or maybe, no active one; I don't recall). > you'd also have to say you 100% trust American intelligence to verify Nope, the plan was for the IEA to do their thing with on-the-ground inspectors, sensors, etc. As just one example, nuclear materials leak radiation and they can find indications of it in air, soil, etc., around faciltiies. Edit: Also, many other countries were involved and looking closely, including European powers and Israel.
- ericmay 22d ago
  > When are you talking about and what is that based on? It was the US that withdrew; the other countries continued. US intelligence concluded that Iran had no nuclear weapons program (or maybe, no active one; I don't recall). They'd just move the research to clandestine or military facilities. They're not stupid. Countries like Iran know how to play these games and they use our own legal mechanisms against us all the time. Separately we shouldn't have to have a JCPOA in the first place, they can just not pursue nuclear weapons like almost every other country on the planet.
  - mmooss 22d ago
    It's not based on anything, then. > we shouldn't have to have a JCPOA in the first place, they can just not pursue nuclear weapons like almost every other country on the planet. Other countries do pursue and have nuclear weapons. Iran has not yet created a full nuclear weapons program - or hadn't before the current war. Iran, being under constant threat from the US and Israel, with open calls to attack Iran for decades; seeing two neighbors recently deposed by the US (Iraq and Afghanistan); and having had their own government deposed and replaced by a US-friendly one (Mosaddegh in 1953); under constant threat from neighbors and the region (Iraq invaded in the 1980s, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states are open enemies, Israel of course); may believe that they need nuclear weapons to survive. Is there another country in a similar position, with the resources to develop nuclear weapons, that doesn't have them? North Korea and Israel both made that choice in similar circumstances. The US 'nuclear umbrella' covers its allies around the world, a very effective non-proliferation tool. Otherwise, I imagine South Korea, Japan, many NATO countries would build them - there is already discussion of it in the former two countries.
mikem170 22d ago
> Iran probably wasn't following the JCPOA Source?
- ericmay 22d ago
  They deny access to “military sites” where nuclear research is done. I mean it’s not like they’re stupid or something.
  - mikem170 22d ago
    I don't know how you got to "Iran probably wasn't following the treaty", when their adhereance to the JCPOA was certified by the U.S. (twice by the Trump administration [0][1]), until Trump wanted to renogiate, withdrawing and re-imposing sanctions in 2018. Everything I found says that the Iranians followed the treaty until they withdrew in 2021. You mentioned military sites... I wondered if the IAEA ever requested access to military sites? They were entitled to do so, under the JCPOA. I couldn't find anything in a quick search I just did. In your response above, you seem to imply that the Iranians may have already sneaked nuclear matarial to military sites. But the The IAEA found no evidence of that, at least as of 2025, well after the treaty, as per this summary report: > Iran held enriched uranium at all three main nuclear sites: Natanz, Fordow, and Esfahan. There are no indications that Iran moved stocks outside of these three sites [2] Once again, do you have sources for what you are saying, that the Iranians weren't following the treaty while it was in effect, or that there were military sites where they were hiding nuclear research? I'm not finding any. Or is this just an opinion, or a guess? I would say that one must be careful, those who profit in some way from war always exaggerate the enemy. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/19/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-administration-approves-agreement-but-review-looms https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/19/iran-nuclear-d... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/us/politics/trump-iran-nuclear-deal-recertify.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/us/politics/trump-iran-nu... [2] https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/analysis-of-iaea-iran-verification-and-monitoring-report-may-2025 https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/analysis-of-iaea-iran-v...
    - ericmay 22d ago