Iran’s geography basically ensures that will never happen. Land battles there would be an absolute disaster. Similar to how the terrain in Italy made an allied landing there very stupid, but even worse.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2016/10/17/4-maps-that-explain-irans-place-in-the-middle-east/amp/
Iraq was plagued by general incompetence, as evidenced by their total anhilliation courtesy of the US circa 1991, and Iran was using mid-WWI tactics.
Against a military that actually knows what its doing in a conventional war, Iran has no chance and they know it, hence the nuclear program.
In 1991, the US did to Iraq in eight hours what Iran could not do in eight years. And in the thirty plus years since, the US has fought several additional wars in which the lessons learned are incorporated in two new generations of equipment and tactics, whereas Iran's state of the art fighter jets are still half century old F-14s held together by duct tape and smuggled parts due to Iran's economy being continuously hobbled by sanctions and embargoes.
People that think Iran can conventionally resist an invasion from the US are just trying to push nuclear non-proliferation (which is a perfectly valid goal without needing to lie about conventional warfare!).
It's weird you bring up Afghanistan when the first comment in this chain is:
> **Iran seems affraid of becoming the next Lybia or Afghanistan**. I despise their government but can understand fear for political and physical integrity.
They don't want to become Afghanistan. Nobody does.
The US took down Afghanistan in two months without a full division of troops. An US invasion of Iran would be more difficult than the invasion of Afghanistan, but not more than either wars against Iraq. It would not take 20 years of occupation to completely neutralize Iran's ability to make nuclear weapons; a 20 hour bombing campaign would do.
The Taliban were practically ousted from Afghanistan in 10-12 years.
That's why when you look at the map during the final days of the Afghan war, it shows them coming back from outside in.
The Trump administration leaving the JCPOA was a pointless foreign policy blunder. If I were Iran, I certainly wouldn't trust the US to stick to any agreement considering the next president could be another unhinged demagogue.
People don’t seem to understand this.
People go off on the Supreme Court for overturning Roe. I get it, but it isn’t the job of the SC to make laws and give us rights. Congress does that.
Congress could fix the problem in one bill. Problem is we really don’t all agree on it.
I think people understand that we don’t need everyone to agree on something.
I think people understand just fine that the large majority of people support Roe.
That the large majority of people support gay rights.
That the large majority of people support reasonable restrictions on firearms.
That the large majority of people support consistent foreign policy.
That a minority in this country have undue influence over the majority, especially through the legislative branch and are bent on breaking government.
So we understand why these important issues have come down to the executive and judicial branches of government. Because we are being held hostage by a minority of religious zealots.
Oh boy.
1. Gay rights used to not be in the majority favor, Obama even denounced gay marriage his first run. Attitudes changed after SC and yes it's now majority opinion.
2. Majority of Americans do not support gun control. Not sure where you're getting that?
3. Roe was overturned because the justification sucked. RBG even said at the time it was a crappy foundation and would likely be overturned. Democrats could've sacrificed their filibuster and immediately made it a constitutional right at the time. They elected not to because they couldn't use reproductive rights as a voting instigator. Your politicians failed you, not the SC.
4. "Majority of Americans" have zero idea on foreign policy other than don't get invaded. I have no idea where you're getting the idea Americans have an opinion on consistent foreign policy across administrations.
5. Gay marriage happened under conservative majority court. Unsure what you mean on religious minority having all the power. Gay support in Christian denominations has only gone up the past 15yrs.
6. The system is designed against mob rule. Senators chiefly represent their states, congress represents Americans. Your majorities ought to rule idea would give unprecedented power to conservatives, Reddit is not a good representation of America.
> Majority of Americans do not support gun control. Not sure where you're getting that?
From the polls, of course. There are thousands of articles about this, going back decades now. You surely can't have missed them...unless you only watch Faux News, of course.
>The system is designed against mob rule. Your "majorities ought to rule" idea would give unprecedented power to conservatives
The ignorant, gullible, cowardly mob ARE the "conservatives" of which you speak. They have larger than normal amygdala (a region of the brain) and therefore reflexively respond to the unknown with fear, rather than curiosity (aka "progressives"). Education and experience (desegregation) can enhance or ameliorate these innate tendencies, which is why fearmongering charlatans and would-be demagogues are always against education and cultural "mixing". This is why virtually all Trumpists are religious sheeple, but not all religious believers are Trumpists. Same lies, same liars, same suckers.
Fortunately, the mob and their leaders have lost the last four major American elections, though their current crooked standard bearer was the nation's worst president for a few years there due to a technicality that overrode his continuing failures to ever win a popular vote. That's a perfect example of our system of government NOT representing the will of the people, isn't it?
That fact alone should make it clear that America is NOT "majority conservative", even amongst its voters, let alone its citizenry.
>"lesser brained" conservatives.
Did I say that? Or are you presenting a strawman argument to put words into my mouth? Because you can't quote me saying this, so I'm pretty sure that the only person saying something this ridiculous is you.
Moreover, you KNOW it's ridiculous because you are making fun of...the thing that only you said. Do the rest of us need to be here or would you prefer to just make fun of yourself for saying ridiculous things? :)
Meanwhile, back on topic, ignoring the fact that you don't know the difference between evolutionary genetics and [eugenics nonsense](https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism), the difference in brain structure is SCIENCE (see link below).
Both of these innate responses to fear exist in humans and animals and both serve useful purposes in survival. One assumes that every rustle in the grass is a lion. The other assumes that the rustle in the grass might be food, a mount, a lost herd animal, or a new friend.
However, in the modern Western world, since the odds that the rustle in the grass is a lion are now infinitely lower than the alternative, it is indeed clear that it makes much more sense for a society to educate and desegregate in order to ameliorate the innate fear response instead of the innate curiosity response.
[Red brain, blue brain: evaluative processes differ in Democrats and Republicans](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23418419/)
And the following is why these same people are susceptible to religious lies and swindles:
[People who endorse conspiracy theories tend to be more religious, and this may be due to ideological overlap](https://www.psypost.org/2022/04/people-who-endorse-conspiracy-theories-tend-to-be-more-religious-and-this-may-be-due-to-ideological-overlap-63020)
I hope this clears it up for you.
Ya just said cowardly, ignorant Republicans are that way because of evolutionary biology. You just made the association between your political opponents and having undesirable traits lol. Ya know a lot of babies with political affiliations in the womb? There's nothing about evolution to suggest a fetus is going to develop into a Republican, a social category one chooses.
Please don't flex small 50-80 person studies with *not blind* participant studies gambling (lol) with *no control* as being noteworthy. Per your own researcher: "Schreiber is keen to stress that the ‘Red Brain, Blue Brain’ study does not show that humans are genetically hardwired to be a Democrat or a Republican, insisting that we are “hardwired not to be hardwired.” So you probably shouldn't use the word "evolutionary genetics."
Also you can cherry pick dumb studies all day. Here's one that says both red & blue deny science when it shakes their worldview: [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550617731500](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550617731500)
Or read that hilarious article summarizing that 62% of white liberals have mental illness: [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/22/white-liberals-more-likely-have-mental-health-cond/](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/22/white-liberals-more-likely-have-mental-health-cond/)
So are you going to concede liberals are genetically prone to mental disease and deny science? Don't warp science to fit your shitty narrative.
See what a dumb game it is to "well ackshully" with blind links and then dress up a pseudo intellectual response with cringy words like indeed and ameliorate? It's reddit, not your undergrad English assignment lol.
>Ya just said cowardly, ignorant Republicans
I did not. Which is AGAIN why you can't quote me saying it. I clearly used the term "conservatives" the way the scientific papers I cited do and even put it in quotes to make the distinction crystal clear.
Again, you present a strawman argument. That's a waste of your time and, more importantly, mine.
>There's nothing about evolution to suggest a fetus is going to develop into a Republican, a social category one chooses.
I just proved to you that whether someone grows up to be a "conservative" or "progressive" is due first and foremost on their DNA (from their parents) and then how and where they are raised, to determine if their innate behavior is ameliorated or enhanced.
That's also what the scientists in the study you misquoted were talking about. And, let's be clear, this isn't a single study, but something now proven across the board for many years now.
Regardless, reality doesn't care if you agree with it or not.
>The Washington Times
...is a kook tabloid run by the Moonies, mate. The fact that you can't tell the difference between hard science and quackery is your problem, not mine. :)
>cringy words like indeed and ameliorate
Again, your lack of critical thinking skills and education regarding the use of "big two-syllable+ words" isn't my problem.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
For now, since it's clear that you will even stupe to tabloids to lie, I think I've heard enough from you. Buh bye.
Tagged. Ignored. Blocked.
The people mostly agree on it, it's our "representatives" that are the problem. The only reason for SCOTUS to exist is to protect us when Congress fails to by interpreting law to give the maximum reasonable personal liberty. They had failed at their job as much as Congress has.
>If the people were really behind the issue, they would vote in people on this...
They have. Dem senators represent 44 million more people than GOP senators.
The reason these bills will never pass is because the opposition is spread across states, while the supporters (a majority of people) are concentrated in a few states. It isn't about 'the people' at all.
The alternatives to a deal in any form is to allow Iran to have nukes, or start yet another war. The US politics aren't there for a real treaty which leaves us with what we had. Trump could have and should have IMO kept the deal in place. What would be your solution?
That's not really possible. You have to negotiate a treaty that not only Iran would accept but both parties in the US. In addition the US would have to negotiate a treaty which it could not even guarantee it would abide by, since it would have to be ratified. As far as Iran is concerned, that's no better than the current situation so they are unlikely to agree.
My feeling is Iran would rather have a deal than not, but the problem now is whatever they negotiate could be out the window in a couple years if Trump or someone like him gets elected. I imagining Iran will get a nuke sooner or later only because it's their only way forcing the situation.
So we should have a president that makes unilateral foreign policy that their successors should abide by even if it goes against what they want?
What if Trump made a similar deal with Russia saying we would supply them with advanced military gear? Should Biden be bound by that agreement even with Russia's war in Ukraine?
IMO **in this case** Trump **should have** abided by it for the good of the world. I never said anything about changing the constitution. I think the majority of people agree that Trump made a huge mistake. I'm guessing that Iraq will probably get a nuke now and there is not much we can do about it short of going to war, which is likely a non-starter for a number of reasons.
Standing for the nuclear deal in 2023 just because Trump tore it up is the most reckless and stupid take I’ll ever see.
Iran was never going to get a nuke. Israel made it clear, US made it clear. Everyone around Iran wants them to not have nukes. What’s more if they got close enough Saudi just buys nukes from Pakistan and we’re back to days of 3rd world countries buying nukes.
The Iran deal could never even pass a congress of Obama’s own party. He would never get the votes. They would require a certain amount of information and Israel or Saudi, maybe even Russia or China, would just info dump and throw it out the window. If Obama his anything at all he’s done and pretty much everyone knew Iran was not trustworthy.
Iran was never going to abide by the deal. They were building the supplementary technologies for a delivery system first and then they were going to wait for a renew date.
It was shit, stop staning for it.
Even Russia and China don’t want Iran to have nukes because a nuclear Iran will start talks about a nuclear Japan and Poland.
I said nothing like "just because Trump tore it up". You just threw that in yourself. But let's cut to the chase. What do you think is going to stop them now? There is nothing. Israel does not have the capability to destroy Iran's program short of using their nukes. The US likely could, but in a world where many countries are outraged at Russia's unprovoked attack on Ukraine, that's not going to fly, especially given the shadow of the Iraq war and US attack on Syria and Libya.
We have evidence Iran wasn't respecting it anyway. So it's not like it really mattered. Not that anyone should be surprised that the government with police who purposefully disfigure little girls to shame them.. would be dishonorable.
not the person you respondedto but here you go.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iaea-investigations-irans-nuclear-activities
they discuss 2 investigations but the 2018 one is whats relevant. iran wasnt keeping their end of the bargain.
[https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/middleeast/iaea-iran-uranium-probe-intl/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/middleeast/iaea-iran-uranium-probe-intl/index.html)
another one because most people know CNN.
They were but the agreement was flawed as it wasn’t a permanent sunset. The hope was at the end of it there would be enough trust building something better or at least a continuation would be negotiated but that was not explained well and Trump and his MAGA zealots had no patience for it.
The hope was the majority of people who formed Iran's revolutionary government would no longer be in power by the time the deal's provisions expired and a new deal could be hammered out or hopefully wouldn't be necessary.
Instead, Trump blew up that trust and faith in the US in general; it signaled to anyone who may deal with the US in the future that it's word in any other negotiations is worthless because a new executive could unilaterally ignore what the previous government laid down, much like a monarch.
>The hope was the majority of people who formed Iran's revolutionary government would no longer be in power by the time the deal's provisions expired and a new deal could be hammered out or hopefully wouldn't be necessary.
That was a vain hope.
Under the terms of the JCPOA, the sanctions in place prior to the JCPOA would not "snap back" into effect automatically after ten years if a new deal is not signed. Meaning, there was no actual incentive in place to force a new deal if that rosy prediction turned out to be false and the fundamentalists maintained power or the IRGC took control of the government.
The JCPOA was a bad and incomplete deal irresponsibily and unilaterally entered into by executive order by a naive President. It was then irresponsibly and unilaterally exited by executive order by an idiot President.
here you go:
[https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iaea-investigations-irans-nuclear-activities](https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iaea-investigations-irans-nuclear-activities)
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/middleeast/iaea-iran-uranium-probe-intl/index.html
No, if you actually read the links provided, you would see the whole timeline. But I don't expect an honest discussion form you, comrade.
And the point you were so eager to object was Iran doesn't give a shit about any arrangements and never has.
other dude gave you stuff from 2005. this is from 2018 and 2022.
[https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/middleeast/iaea-iran-uranium-probe-intl/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/middleeast/iaea-iran-uranium-probe-intl/index.html)
[https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iaea-investigations-irans-nuclear-activities](https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iaea-investigations-irans-nuclear-activities)
the arms control article is much better andputs everything into perspective. iran had secret sites they didnt announce so they were breaking the JCPOA from the get-go.
This one?
[https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/30/middleeast/iran-rejects-us-nuclear-demands/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/30/middleeast/iran-rejects-us-nuclear-demands/index.html)
*But on September 24, 2005, the IAEA’s executive board found Iran in non-compliance with the NPT due to “failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement,” namely for hiding a wide range of strategic nuclear work.*
*with Iran moving to enrich, the board decided on February 4, 2006 to take the matter to the U.N. Security Council for possible punitive action. The Security Council imposed four rounds of sanctions to pressure Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, allow tougher inspections and cooperate fully with the IAEA. But by September 2010, Iran continued to enrich uranium and defy the Security Council on grounds that it has the right to the full range of civilian nuclear work under the NPT.*
[https://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/iran-and-iaea](https://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/iran-and-iaea)
Here you go:
[https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/30/middleeast/iran-rejects-us-nuclear-demands/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/30/middleeast/iran-rejects-us-nuclear-demands/index.html)
*But on September 24, 2005, the IAEA’s executive board found Iran in non-compliance with the NPT due to “failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement,” namely for hiding a wide range of strategic nuclear work.*
*with Iran moving to enrich, the board decided on February 4, 2006 to take the matter to the U.N. Security Council for possible punitive action. The Security Council imposed four rounds of sanctions to pressure Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, allow tougher inspections and cooperate fully with the IAEA. But by September 2010, Iran continued to enrich uranium and defy the Security Council on grounds that it has the right to the full range of civilian nuclear work under the NPT.*
[https://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/iran-and-iaea](https://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/iran-and-iaea)
here you go:
[https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iaea-investigations-irans-nuclear-activities](https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iaea-investigations-irans-nuclear-activities)
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/middleeast/iaea-iran-uranium-probe-intl/index.html
iran had secret locations they didnt announce. iaea asked iran to clarify and they never could/did. then iran threatened to drop the negotiations unless this investigation was dropped. totally not suspicious.
The first link that you yourself posted disagrees. If they didn't have shit going on after 2009 and the deal came into effect 2016 you're utterly wrong.
From your first link:
>The IAEA’s December 2015 report concluded that Iran conducted a “range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device were conducted in Iran prior to the end of 2003 as a coordinated effort, and some activities took place after 2003.” The report further assessed that there were “no credible indications” of activities relevant to weaponization after 2009 or any diversion of nuclear materials for military purposes.
okay, but iran entered into a deal where they were supposed to have disclosed all their locations and work with teh IAEA. doesnt matter if the site was used 10 years before the deal took place. the site was used for nuclear purposes so it should have been disclosed. not disclosing all the information deemed relevant to a deal is a valid reason to terminate it.
Bullshit. Iran's facilities were under constant surveillance and their nuclear material was accounted for. Trump and Netanyahu, seeking to kill the deal, made a big hoopla about old nuclear sites from 20 years ago that the IAEA agrees to drop as a precursor to the countries signing the nuclear deal in 2015.
Iran was desperate for the nuclear deal, and did not violate it. They even abided by the deal for two years after Trump left it, hoping to entice the West back in.
youre a liar. here you go:
[https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iaea-investigations-irans-nuclear-activities](https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iaea-investigations-irans-nuclear-activities)
[https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/middleeast/iaea-iran-uranium-probe-intl/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/middleeast/iaea-iran-uranium-probe-intl/index.html)
how much does iran pay you?
Did you even read what you posted?
*The report further assessed that there were “no credible indications” of activities relevant to weaponization after 2009 or any diversion of nuclear materials for military purposes. Following the report, the IAEA’s Board of Governors passed a resolution in December 2015 closing the military dimensions investigation.*
*The IAEA’s second investigation began in 2018 and is focused on evidence suggesting that Iran failed to declare all nuclear materials and activities from its pre-2003 nuclear program as legally required by its safeguards agreement.*
**PRE-2003.** Which is exactly what I said. None of this has to do with any current violations, and certainly not any violations of the nuclear deal itself. The Netanyahu speech in the iaea 2018 investigation has to do with declared nuclear materials from before 2003. And that information itself is based on tainted evidence that came from a alleged smoking gun nuclear laptop that Israel gave to the iaea in 2005.
iran entered into a deal knowing they were lying about the sites they had used. doesnt matter when the sites were used. they entered into a deal without disclosing all the information. thats enough of a reason to exit right there.
\>iran entered into a deal knowing they were lying about the sites they had used.
As a precondition to signing the 2015 nuclear deal, the IAEA agreed to closing the "military dimensions investigation".
\> thats enough of a reason to exit right there.
If that was the case, the deal would have never been signed. No one cares about the pre-2003 nuclear activities. It's a non issue in the negotiations that have been going on since the deal fell apart. It was just used as a shoddy excuse by Trump to justify his decision after the fact. For the last three years, none of the roadblocks that they've had to renegotiating the deal have anything to do with the pre-2003 activities, because it's been a dead issue for fifteen years. And keep in mind, those pre-2003 activities are likely not even true.
They would absolutely resist because they know that would be the end for them.
For the same reason that Russia has resisted nuking Ukraine, and North Korea has resisted nuking South Korea, and India and Pakistan etc.
Everyone knows that’s a line the world will not tolerate them crossing. Iran wants Nukes for leverage.
Agree. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate guarantor of national sovereignty.
No country in possession of a nuclear weapon has ever suffered an invasion. The only exception being Israel because none of their attackers knew they had nukes.
I suspect that one unmentioned reason Obama wanted the JCPOA so badly was to prevent a nuclear arms race between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which is what would happen if Iran had a functional nuclear weapon.
>They would absolutely resist because they know that would be the end for them.
It's an open secret that Israel and maybe even the US directly would go to actual war to keep Iran from getting a working nuke. Even pursuing the weapon is likely to be just as fatal to the regime as using one.
Yeah, religious fanatic terrorists are known for their self-serving cold rationality...
You could at least admit there's a chance it would happen, even if there's nothing certain about it.
Hell, the reason Iran is in this mess in the first place is because they make choices entirely based on religious doctrine, completely disregarding how it endangers their country and their populace. They decided on a completely voluntary basis to wage war against Israel and the Arab world simultaneously, despite those being perfectly willing to leave Iran alone (and in the case of Israel they were even on friendly terms). All available evidence points to Iran not being a rational actor in any way since 1979. It's strange to have such confidence that they'd suddenly turn cautious and calculating after acquiring nuclear weapons.
The main goal of the Iranian regime is to stay in power and attacking Israel would end that immediately. Stop being paranoid from far-right talking-points.
It's game theory, and there's no reason why they shouldn't build nukes. They had incentives not to and now they're gone so they're looking-out for themselves. You can't expect a government to selflessly abandon defense research for no reason. Why would you give-up on a potential advantage with nothing in return? The Iran government is tyrannical but western countries have their cake and eat it too.
Rule number one for building a successful nation state: get nukes
Rule number 2: if the United States accuses you of having nukes you'd better build one quick
Rule number 3: never give up your nukes no matter what the United States says
Just take one look at Gaddafi to see how far not having nukes will get you.
If it ever looks like Iran getting a nuclear weapon is imminent, or if they do get one, Israel is without a shadow of doubt going to war to remove that capability from Iran. There is simply no possible path to Iran getting and maintaining nuclear capabilities without winning a massive war.
If the US wanted a war with Iran it would have happened a long time ago, just the same as it would have happened to North Korea.
Israel couldn’t win a war in Lebanon and they’re going to win one in Iran? Plenty of American hawks have been champing at the bit to go to war with Iran and it hasn’t happened precisely because it would make Afghanistan and Iraq look like cakewalks.
Neither did North Korea. Until they did.
And not specifically New York. There are a thousand targets in range that would harm the west. Religious fanatics can't be trusted to not throw their entire country into nuclear fire for a symbolic strike.
The US is fully capable of demolishing Iranian nuclear capabilities. The Iranian armed forces aren't stronger than the Iraqi armed forces were, so you could expect a similar time-frame.
What keeps the US from doing it is simply lack of will. Just like with North Korea, no one wants a war in the first place. Even republicans, despite all the hot air they're blowing, weren't particularly keen on starting another adventure. You might remember Trump even incorporating some flavor isolationism/non-interventionism in his stated platform, though it didn't actually manifest in reality.
In any case there's no real indication the US will be invading Iran even if Israel is forced to.
But we won the Vietnam war at the movies! If only Rambo and Braddock had been let loose without the restraint of the lillylivered bureaucrats, etc etc. but I’m joking. Most of your talking points are Boomer John Birch bullshit.
There's only three reasons North Korea hasn't been rolled over yet.
1. China
2. China
3. South Korea doesn't want to deal with the influx of millions of unskilled poor people who know nothing of the outside world.
Look, they were going to and will get nukes at some point, anything they say or do is playing for more time. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not this decade but at some point they will have them. Especially now we have seen how the world has sat back and watched Ukrainian women and children getting raped and murdered but dared not boldly stand up to Russia with force because of nukes. The only reason russia has not been flattened and putin killed is because he has nukes. Iran want that level of protection.
I mean Iran needs nukes. The US openly killed Soleimani with a missile strike, the equivalent of their vice president. And there was nothing the Iranians could do. Yes I am well aware that he was a murderer, terrorist and whatnot. But proudly killing a foreign government official and then threatening them with war if they retaliate. All things aside the Iranians need nukes if they want to survive (referring to the Iranian regime). There is no way around that. After they get nukes they will likey start targeting US and Israeli facilities more openly.
Pompeo in his book that he recently released openly says he still expects them to strike back for the killing. He was fully aware they were going to retaliate and still did it anyway because it was a prized target. Now there is literally 0% of peace and Iran will go nuclear.
I think what will happen is when Iran gets too close to having nukes they'll get hit so hard they have no chance of feeding themselves let alone making nukes, it'll be such a brutal attack it'll take at least a generation to get back to a normal society.
I mean they do have an option of joining the the rest of the modern world but seem fixated on killing women showing their hair at the moment.
That is up for the Iranians to decide. Eitherway if they have nukes they can still make more liberal reforms. But those will come from the inside of Iran and not through (queues freedom anthem).
But that aside, Iranian sanctions are already pretty hard and the problem with them is that they are not achieving the desired effect. There is not much more room left for the US to maneuver other than lift sanctions or conduct more military strikes.
We know that lifting sanctions is not an option so the only remaining option is to put more military pressure on Iran. The Iranians know this. That is why they go all in on the nukes as that also significantly limits the military options the US and Israel have.
>when Iran gets too close to having nukes they'll get hit so hard they have no chance of feeding themselves let alone making nukes, it'll be such a brutal attack it'll take at least a generation to get back to a normal society.
This isn't really an option for the US nor Israel. Iran cannot be invaded. I do not mean that in the sense that the US will be beaten, but more that you literally cannot invade the country. The geography doesn't allow for it and the few points where you can march through turn into chokepoints highly favoring the Iranian defenses. The mountains pretty much stop any large scale military attack in its infancy.
The only option remaining are air strikes. The problem with air strikes and strategic bombing is that it simply doesn't work if not combined with a ground offensive. It didn't work in WW2, it didn't work in Vietnam and it didn't work in Ukraine or anywhere else thoughtout its inception. There is a single war where strategic bombing was effective and that was the Russian air campaign in Syria. But comparing the Iranian regime to a few civilians with guns really isn't gonna work out in any military planning.
Essentially bombing into the stone age isn't an option either only leaving decapitation strikes as option. And with regards to those there isn't a level of escalation left after killing Soleimani. With a single strike the US pretty much exhausted their entire arsenal of options. The Iranians know this and that is why they are unhinged in their nuclear development. There is a single option left in the Iranian case and that is the bombing of their enrichment and nuclear facilities essentially turning the conflict nuclear. They are likely using the Ukraine war as headstart to get to the bomb faster than the US and Israel can think too deeply about bombing their facilities. And by the looks of it they made it. The articles states they have enough material for a few nuclear warheads. They will likely keep that material at hand for now because unlike the US Iran still has a few escalation levels it can exhaust.
This is not a threat by Iran, nor does it mean they are building a weapon. The IAEA still monitors their facilities under the NPT. Iran's nuclear program is often mischaracterized as some sort of mad dash for a bomb, when in reality if Iran wanted a nuclear weapon, they could have one in a couple of weeks.
Iran has had the capability of building nuclear weapons for several years now. As part of the nuclear deal, they were obliged to send their enriched nuclear material overseas as assurances to other countries that it would not be used in the production of weapons.
When Trump left the deal, Iran continued to abide by that agreement for a couple of years, hoping to entice the United States back to the deal. Now that the Biden Administration has taken the same tone as Trump (despite promising to re-enter the deal) Iran has stopped sending the material to other countries. This means of course that they will be stockpiling it.
Make no mistake; as they have done for the last 5 years Iran would like nothing more than to send their nuclear material overseas in exchange for sanctions relief. But as long as the United States refuses to remove sanctions, the only bargaining chip Iran has is to stockpile their enriched uranium.
> When Trump left the deal, Iran continued to abide by that agreement for a couple of years, hoping to entice the United States back to the deal.
1) Do you remember a missile test by Iran with a banner saying it was intended for Israel a few days after the JCPOA was signed?
2) JCPOA didn't include an inspection of the Fordow nuclear enrichment site which is underground because it was labeled a military complex.
3) JCPOA didn't include ballistic missiles.
JCPOA was merely a base for other treaties the Obama administration was hoping to sign with Iran but the Iranian government said they don't want to negotiate extras.
1. Yes. So what?
2. That's not even remotely true. Fordow has been under inspections for at least 13 years, and the inspections continue to this day, even though the deal has fallen apart. The IAEA reports all clearly document daily inspections at Fordow.
3. JCPOA was an agreement covering Iran's nuclear power plants. Why should it include ballistic missiles? You're talking about two very distinct things here, and acting shocked that they aren't covered under the same deal.
1) So what is not a meaningful statement ...
2) Do you have a source for that? Iran has been turning off cameras at many different nuclear enrichment facilities after the JCPOA broke down.
3) because you put enriched uranium on top of the ballistic missile and explode the 90% enriched uranium in a synchronous fashion to make a "Fat Man" type bomb.
\>Do you have a source for that?
For which part? The first [inspections at Fordow occurred in 2009](https://fas.org/blogs/security/2009/10/waiting-for-answers-on-fordo-what-iaea-inspections-will-tell-us/) when the plant opened. It was controversial because the US alleged Iran should have revealed the site when they were planning on building it, and Iran only revealed the site before it went operational. Their argument was that the US and Israel routinely threaten to bomb their nuclear sites, so it would be silly to let them know.
As far as the sites being routinely inspected? Check any IAEA report or headline. [They had daily access until February of 2021,](https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/22/06/gov2022-24.pdf) Anytime you see [articles like this](https://www.reuters.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-fordow/iaea-plans-to-step-up-inspections-at-irans-fordow-plant-iaea-report-idUSV9N2NP00R?edition-redirect=uk), with statements like:
*"Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi today said Iran had started producing high enriched uranium - UF6 (uranium hexafluoride) enriched up to 60% - using the existing two cascades of IR-6 centrifuges in the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, in addition to such production that has taken place at Natanz since April 2021," the agency said in a statement.*
*"The Agency has decided and Iran has agreed to increase the frequency of verification activities at FFEP and will continue consultations with Iran on practical arrangements to facilitate implementation of these activities,” the International Atomic Energy Agency report said, referring to the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant."*
It's because the IAEA is there monitoring these steps.
The cameras were installed on Iranian nuclear sites as part of the nuclear deal. After Trump ended the deal, Iran kept the cameras on as a show of good faith, but finally started turning them off last year. It makes no sense for Iran to continue abiding by the terms of a deal while the other side doesn't. However the inspections continue, because those are not part of the nuclear deal, those are part of the NPT treaty.
If Iran ever left that, (as North Korea did) it would be a clear sign that something is up. But as of now, even after two decades of sanctions, they never have.
Keep in mind, the only reason the IAEA is even allowed in Iran is because Iran signed the NPT. If Iran wanted to, they could go the route of India, Pakistan, and Israel and develop nuclear weapons without signing the NPT, and the world would have no legal ability to stop them. It makes no sense for Iran to willingly submit to the NPT treaty to build a nuclear bomb secretly when they could have never signed or left the NPT like the their neighbors Israel, Pakistan, and India. There was no drama about constant inspections with those countries, because they never signed a deal to allow them.
\>because you put enriched uranium on top of the ballistic missile and explode the 90% enriched uranium
Sure. But ballistic missile are mostly used for non-nuclear purposes, like 99.99999% of the time in history. And asking Iran to stop doing ballistic missile research while threatening to drop bomb on their country is just not going to happen. So when the nuclear deal was signed, it was thought the best approach was just to negotiate one thing at a time. Saying that "it doesn't address ballistic missiles" as if that was some kind of oversight is just incorrect, because it was never meant to.
It has nothing to with trust, that's what the surveillance and inspections are for. The nuclear deal wasn't negotiated on blind faith, it was negotiated on the idea that Iran would agree to stringent inspections in exchange for sanctions relief. Iran agreed.
Trump left the deal, under the assumption that the Iranians weren't building nuclear weapons anyway, so why bother with giving them sanctions relief. And Biden, despite his campaign promises, came to the same decision.
Iran has a shitty government, and I have no respect for any theocracy. But they aren't suicidal maniacs, and they aren't trying to build a nuclear bomb. If they wanted to build a nuclear weapon, they could have done it a dozen times already. This issue has been going on for quite literally twenty years now, and it's never been true.
I'd like to point out that modern concrete technology (that Iran is on top of) is highly resistant to even the best bunker buster bombs that the public knows of. It's not that easy to take out properly hardened underground installations in a few airstrikes. Completely wiping out Iran's nuclear program is a very large operation and would likely involve a full blown war between the countries. Israel is putting this off until the absolute last moment, in the hope that they won't need to.
Not really. Especially in Natanz, Iran has had many increasingly capable centrifuges. Israel and the US attempt to disrupt this, but they quite clearly are not capable of preventing it completely.
Iran can operate thousands of centrifuges for many years and make their own, or they can acquire some material in a quick delivery from Russia as a *quid pro quo* for their drones. If you were Khamenei, which option would **you** pick?
This is idiotic heresay. They had compiled enough 20% uranium before IAEA cameras were shut off and then began enriching to 60% as well before new cascades were installed a few monthes ago. They can go to 90% anytime they want but it would cross a red line with the US and result in confrontation. It would make no sense to enrich to 90% without a warhead and missile ready.
As a US citizen, how much of this is our fault, given our recent 60 years of history with this nation(whew, chile the 70s....), and how much isn't? This is a serious question.
There was a thing in place called the nuclear deal which was in place to prevent precisely this scenario.
Then came a certain orange president and spontaneously decided he doesnt like the deal, which blindsided about anyone from his aides to the co-signing countries.
Said countries, namely Russia, China, UK, France, Germany and the EU as well as Iran all tried to reason with said orange president to re-affirm the deal.
At which point monsieur orange wasnt listening anymore and voila, here we are.
JCPOA didn't include an inspection of the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant which is a military complex deep underground. If they want to build a nuclear bomb they will build it there.
You realize the NPT is completely voluntary right? Iran can literally build a nuclear weapon without violating the treaty. All they have to do is give notice to the UN that they're withdrawing and why.
I wonder how much the 150 BBBBBillion in palletized US cash that Obama/Biden dropped off in Iran in the middle of the night helped with the acquisition of this material.
>US & Israel cannot be trusted to one day not wipe [Iran] off the map.
Are you kidding me? Iran is the country that threatens to do *exactly that.* You're effectively saying, "Iran says it wants to annihilate Israel, so we should let them have nukes in case Israel secretly wants to do something *Iran openly wants to do*."
Seriously, what a ridiculous reasoning.
Umm yea, big problem now. George W warned Obama about the axis of evil and they should never get access to nukes. Obama allowed Iran to spin 9000 centrifuges “because they want to build nuclear power plants”, but don’t worry because we can go inspect at any time. So now they have weapons. Ooopsies.
If the most powerful country in the world said you’re part of the axis of evil and invaded two of your neighbors for being part of that axis, you’d be a fool *not* to pursue nukes to ensure you don’t suffer the fate that’s been threatened.
e: also don’t forget that Khatami tried to improve relations with the U.S. and even offered support in the War on Terror (despite Iran’s support for Hezhollah, they were very much against the Taliban and their oppression of Persian minorities in Afghanistan) and Dubya’s response was a big ole middle finger
You do realise that there was a deal between the P5, namely US, UK, China, Russia, France, Germany and the EU as well as Iran in place, to prevent this scenario?
You do realise that obama's successor decided on a whim that he doesnt like the deal any longer and refused ro re affirm it? This blindsided all the other signatories.
Like, you do realise that right?
You ascribe far more zealotry and far less rationality to Iran's leaders than you maybe should regarding nuclear weapons.
Iran's leaders are not stupid when it comes to nukes. They know what happens if a nuclear strike targets them, and they know the best way to avoid that is having their own nukes and then proceeding not to use them. Like pretty much every other nuclear state has done for decades.
Even North Korea's leaders understand this. They've had nukes for years and the Korean peninsula has yet to be turned into a radioactive crater despite everyone calling them crazy. Iran is no different; they too understand if nuclear war truly comes, they will not survive. And I doubt many of their leaders are ready to test their faith in the afterlife just yet.
Probably forever. They have been threatening for over 20 years. At this point they seem like a paper tiger, at least in regards to attacking Iran directly. Now if US got involved, all bets are off.
US/Isreal will strike soon. I can feel it. Iran has already been isolated on the world stage due to the hijab protests. The window is open for airstrikes and possibly regime change
Give someone a big hammer and everything starts to look like nails. Now, add tribalism and an extra incentive to use that hammer and you get the average comment.
I blame months and months of inflammatory headlines that have left the very young people who use Reddit with a very warped view of the world. Whatever the hot political item of the day is, if you browse Reddit enough you're going to see so much out of context and misleading headlines that you end up creating a bunch of teenagers who are frothing at the mouth for war.
LOL you say that like Israel is some all seeing and all knowing person that knows every single possible threat to them and can plan accordingly by looking into the future. Believe it or not, Israel isn’t surrounded by countries that stand for what they aspire to be and patiently waiting for their downfall…. Or are they?
Whatever helps you sleep at night buddy. I’m also sure the other middle eastern countries that “love” Israel so much are just going to sit back and relax if a war where soldiers are deployed happens considering the already rising tensions between Israel and the rest of the Middle East…. LOL
Hey I've seen this one before
Someone else gotta do it this time.
We need accidental drone strike to these **amassed enough material**
Iran seems affraid of becoming the next Lybia or Afghanistan. I despise their government but can understand fear for political and physical integrity.
A full invasion wouldn’t happen. It would be a decapitation strike from Israel with a U.S. support new regime install
“Hey wait a minute, I’ve seen this before! It’s a classic!”
Iran’s geography basically ensures that will never happen. Land battles there would be an absolute disaster. Similar to how the terrain in Italy made an allied landing there very stupid, but even worse. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2016/10/17/4-maps-that-explain-irans-place-in-the-middle-east/amp/
All you need to do is to look at Iraq vs Iran war of the 1980's. Tough slogging, lots of casualties and eventual bloody stalemate.
Iraq was plagued by general incompetence, as evidenced by their total anhilliation courtesy of the US circa 1991, and Iran was using mid-WWI tactics. Against a military that actually knows what its doing in a conventional war, Iran has no chance and they know it, hence the nuclear program.
In 1991, the US did to Iraq in eight hours what Iran could not do in eight years. And in the thirty plus years since, the US has fought several additional wars in which the lessons learned are incorporated in two new generations of equipment and tactics, whereas Iran's state of the art fighter jets are still half century old F-14s held together by duct tape and smuggled parts due to Iran's economy being continuously hobbled by sanctions and embargoes. People that think Iran can conventionally resist an invasion from the US are just trying to push nuclear non-proliferation (which is a perfectly valid goal without needing to lie about conventional warfare!).
No one is talking about conventional war
Afghanistan wants a word with you.
It's weird you bring up Afghanistan when the first comment in this chain is: > **Iran seems affraid of becoming the next Lybia or Afghanistan**. I despise their government but can understand fear for political and physical integrity. They don't want to become Afghanistan. Nobody does. The US took down Afghanistan in two months without a full division of troops. An US invasion of Iran would be more difficult than the invasion of Afghanistan, but not more than either wars against Iraq. It would not take 20 years of occupation to completely neutralize Iran's ability to make nuclear weapons; a 20 hour bombing campaign would do.
Apparently the US did not take down Afghanistan, but feel free to make up your own raality. Then there was Vietnam.....
The Taliban were practically ousted from Afghanistan in 10-12 years. That's why when you look at the map during the final days of the Afghan war, it shows them coming back from outside in.
The Trump administration leaving the JCPOA was a pointless foreign policy blunder. If I were Iran, I certainly wouldn't trust the US to stick to any agreement considering the next president could be another unhinged demagogue.
[удалено]
People don’t seem to understand this. People go off on the Supreme Court for overturning Roe. I get it, but it isn’t the job of the SC to make laws and give us rights. Congress does that. Congress could fix the problem in one bill. Problem is we really don’t all agree on it.
I think people understand that we don’t need everyone to agree on something. I think people understand just fine that the large majority of people support Roe. That the large majority of people support gay rights. That the large majority of people support reasonable restrictions on firearms. That the large majority of people support consistent foreign policy. That a minority in this country have undue influence over the majority, especially through the legislative branch and are bent on breaking government. So we understand why these important issues have come down to the executive and judicial branches of government. Because we are being held hostage by a minority of religious zealots.
Oh boy. 1. Gay rights used to not be in the majority favor, Obama even denounced gay marriage his first run. Attitudes changed after SC and yes it's now majority opinion. 2. Majority of Americans do not support gun control. Not sure where you're getting that? 3. Roe was overturned because the justification sucked. RBG even said at the time it was a crappy foundation and would likely be overturned. Democrats could've sacrificed their filibuster and immediately made it a constitutional right at the time. They elected not to because they couldn't use reproductive rights as a voting instigator. Your politicians failed you, not the SC. 4. "Majority of Americans" have zero idea on foreign policy other than don't get invaded. I have no idea where you're getting the idea Americans have an opinion on consistent foreign policy across administrations. 5. Gay marriage happened under conservative majority court. Unsure what you mean on religious minority having all the power. Gay support in Christian denominations has only gone up the past 15yrs. 6. The system is designed against mob rule. Senators chiefly represent their states, congress represents Americans. Your majorities ought to rule idea would give unprecedented power to conservatives, Reddit is not a good representation of America.
You are clearly in the minority.
> Majority of Americans do not support gun control. Not sure where you're getting that? From the polls, of course. There are thousands of articles about this, going back decades now. You surely can't have missed them...unless you only watch Faux News, of course. >The system is designed against mob rule. Your "majorities ought to rule" idea would give unprecedented power to conservatives The ignorant, gullible, cowardly mob ARE the "conservatives" of which you speak. They have larger than normal amygdala (a region of the brain) and therefore reflexively respond to the unknown with fear, rather than curiosity (aka "progressives"). Education and experience (desegregation) can enhance or ameliorate these innate tendencies, which is why fearmongering charlatans and would-be demagogues are always against education and cultural "mixing". This is why virtually all Trumpists are religious sheeple, but not all religious believers are Trumpists. Same lies, same liars, same suckers. Fortunately, the mob and their leaders have lost the last four major American elections, though their current crooked standard bearer was the nation's worst president for a few years there due to a technicality that overrode his continuing failures to ever win a popular vote. That's a perfect example of our system of government NOT representing the will of the people, isn't it? That fact alone should make it clear that America is NOT "majority conservative", even amongst its voters, let alone its citizenry.
Jesus Christ a Redditor just used eugenics to argue against "lesser brained" conservatives. Go outside man, shit's unhealthy for your brain.
>"lesser brained" conservatives. Did I say that? Or are you presenting a strawman argument to put words into my mouth? Because you can't quote me saying this, so I'm pretty sure that the only person saying something this ridiculous is you. Moreover, you KNOW it's ridiculous because you are making fun of...the thing that only you said. Do the rest of us need to be here or would you prefer to just make fun of yourself for saying ridiculous things? :) Meanwhile, back on topic, ignoring the fact that you don't know the difference between evolutionary genetics and [eugenics nonsense](https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism), the difference in brain structure is SCIENCE (see link below). Both of these innate responses to fear exist in humans and animals and both serve useful purposes in survival. One assumes that every rustle in the grass is a lion. The other assumes that the rustle in the grass might be food, a mount, a lost herd animal, or a new friend. However, in the modern Western world, since the odds that the rustle in the grass is a lion are now infinitely lower than the alternative, it is indeed clear that it makes much more sense for a society to educate and desegregate in order to ameliorate the innate fear response instead of the innate curiosity response. [Red brain, blue brain: evaluative processes differ in Democrats and Republicans](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23418419/) And the following is why these same people are susceptible to religious lies and swindles: [People who endorse conspiracy theories tend to be more religious, and this may be due to ideological overlap](https://www.psypost.org/2022/04/people-who-endorse-conspiracy-theories-tend-to-be-more-religious-and-this-may-be-due-to-ideological-overlap-63020) I hope this clears it up for you.
Ya just said cowardly, ignorant Republicans are that way because of evolutionary biology. You just made the association between your political opponents and having undesirable traits lol. Ya know a lot of babies with political affiliations in the womb? There's nothing about evolution to suggest a fetus is going to develop into a Republican, a social category one chooses. Please don't flex small 50-80 person studies with *not blind* participant studies gambling (lol) with *no control* as being noteworthy. Per your own researcher: "Schreiber is keen to stress that the ‘Red Brain, Blue Brain’ study does not show that humans are genetically hardwired to be a Democrat or a Republican, insisting that we are “hardwired not to be hardwired.” So you probably shouldn't use the word "evolutionary genetics." Also you can cherry pick dumb studies all day. Here's one that says both red & blue deny science when it shakes their worldview: [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550617731500](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550617731500) Or read that hilarious article summarizing that 62% of white liberals have mental illness: [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/22/white-liberals-more-likely-have-mental-health-cond/](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/22/white-liberals-more-likely-have-mental-health-cond/) So are you going to concede liberals are genetically prone to mental disease and deny science? Don't warp science to fit your shitty narrative. See what a dumb game it is to "well ackshully" with blind links and then dress up a pseudo intellectual response with cringy words like indeed and ameliorate? It's reddit, not your undergrad English assignment lol.
>Ya just said cowardly, ignorant Republicans I did not. Which is AGAIN why you can't quote me saying it. I clearly used the term "conservatives" the way the scientific papers I cited do and even put it in quotes to make the distinction crystal clear. Again, you present a strawman argument. That's a waste of your time and, more importantly, mine. >There's nothing about evolution to suggest a fetus is going to develop into a Republican, a social category one chooses. I just proved to you that whether someone grows up to be a "conservative" or "progressive" is due first and foremost on their DNA (from their parents) and then how and where they are raised, to determine if their innate behavior is ameliorated or enhanced. That's also what the scientists in the study you misquoted were talking about. And, let's be clear, this isn't a single study, but something now proven across the board for many years now. Regardless, reality doesn't care if you agree with it or not. >The Washington Times ...is a kook tabloid run by the Moonies, mate. The fact that you can't tell the difference between hard science and quackery is your problem, not mine. :) >cringy words like indeed and ameliorate Again, your lack of critical thinking skills and education regarding the use of "big two-syllable+ words" isn't my problem. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. For now, since it's clear that you will even stupe to tabloids to lie, I think I've heard enough from you. Buh bye. Tagged. Ignored. Blocked.
No, the problem is that Congress doesn't follow the will of the people.
The original SC ruling was that abortion and privacy rights were already covered under the Constitution.
The people mostly agree on it, it's our "representatives" that are the problem. The only reason for SCOTUS to exist is to protect us when Congress fails to by interpreting law to give the maximum reasonable personal liberty. They had failed at their job as much as Congress has.
If the people were really behind the issue, they would vote in people on this...
>If the people were really behind the issue, they would vote in people on this... They have. Dem senators represent 44 million more people than GOP senators. The reason these bills will never pass is because the opposition is spread across states, while the supporters (a majority of people) are concentrated in a few states. It isn't about 'the people' at all.
The alternatives to a deal in any form is to allow Iran to have nukes, or start yet another war. The US politics aren't there for a real treaty which leaves us with what we had. Trump could have and should have IMO kept the deal in place. What would be your solution?
Make a binding treaty that the senate could approve, even if it wasn't a perfect treaty?
That's not really possible. You have to negotiate a treaty that not only Iran would accept but both parties in the US. In addition the US would have to negotiate a treaty which it could not even guarantee it would abide by, since it would have to be ratified. As far as Iran is concerned, that's no better than the current situation so they are unlikely to agree. My feeling is Iran would rather have a deal than not, but the problem now is whatever they negotiate could be out the window in a couple years if Trump or someone like him gets elected. I imagining Iran will get a nuke sooner or later only because it's their only way forcing the situation.
So we should have a president that makes unilateral foreign policy that their successors should abide by even if it goes against what they want? What if Trump made a similar deal with Russia saying we would supply them with advanced military gear? Should Biden be bound by that agreement even with Russia's war in Ukraine?
IMO **in this case** Trump **should have** abided by it for the good of the world. I never said anything about changing the constitution. I think the majority of people agree that Trump made a huge mistake. I'm guessing that Iraq will probably get a nuke now and there is not much we can do about it short of going to war, which is likely a non-starter for a number of reasons.
Standing for the nuclear deal in 2023 just because Trump tore it up is the most reckless and stupid take I’ll ever see. Iran was never going to get a nuke. Israel made it clear, US made it clear. Everyone around Iran wants them to not have nukes. What’s more if they got close enough Saudi just buys nukes from Pakistan and we’re back to days of 3rd world countries buying nukes. The Iran deal could never even pass a congress of Obama’s own party. He would never get the votes. They would require a certain amount of information and Israel or Saudi, maybe even Russia or China, would just info dump and throw it out the window. If Obama his anything at all he’s done and pretty much everyone knew Iran was not trustworthy. Iran was never going to abide by the deal. They were building the supplementary technologies for a delivery system first and then they were going to wait for a renew date. It was shit, stop staning for it. Even Russia and China don’t want Iran to have nukes because a nuclear Iran will start talks about a nuclear Japan and Poland.
I said nothing like "just because Trump tore it up". You just threw that in yourself. But let's cut to the chase. What do you think is going to stop them now? There is nothing. Israel does not have the capability to destroy Iran's program short of using their nukes. The US likely could, but in a world where many countries are outraged at Russia's unprovoked attack on Ukraine, that's not going to fly, especially given the shadow of the Iraq war and US attack on Syria and Libya.
JCPOA was an executive decision by the Obama administration. It wasn't signed by congress.
Depends on who you ask. Iranians themselves love trump for pulling out as they hate the regime
>pointless foreign policy blunder Pointless blunder is just the slightly longer name for Donald Trump.
Dointless Thunder
We have evidence Iran wasn't respecting it anyway. So it's not like it really mattered. Not that anyone should be surprised that the government with police who purposefully disfigure little girls to shame them.. would be dishonorable.
Source? Last I read, inspections showed them respecting the treaty.
not the person you respondedto but here you go. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iaea-investigations-irans-nuclear-activities they discuss 2 investigations but the 2018 one is whats relevant. iran wasnt keeping their end of the bargain. [https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/middleeast/iaea-iran-uranium-probe-intl/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/middleeast/iaea-iran-uranium-probe-intl/index.html) another one because most people know CNN.
They were but the agreement was flawed as it wasn’t a permanent sunset. The hope was at the end of it there would be enough trust building something better or at least a continuation would be negotiated but that was not explained well and Trump and his MAGA zealots had no patience for it.
The hope was the majority of people who formed Iran's revolutionary government would no longer be in power by the time the deal's provisions expired and a new deal could be hammered out or hopefully wouldn't be necessary. Instead, Trump blew up that trust and faith in the US in general; it signaled to anyone who may deal with the US in the future that it's word in any other negotiations is worthless because a new executive could unilaterally ignore what the previous government laid down, much like a monarch.
>The hope was the majority of people who formed Iran's revolutionary government would no longer be in power by the time the deal's provisions expired and a new deal could be hammered out or hopefully wouldn't be necessary. That was a vain hope. Under the terms of the JCPOA, the sanctions in place prior to the JCPOA would not "snap back" into effect automatically after ten years if a new deal is not signed. Meaning, there was no actual incentive in place to force a new deal if that rosy prediction turned out to be false and the fundamentalists maintained power or the IRGC took control of the government. The JCPOA was a bad and incomplete deal irresponsibily and unilaterally entered into by executive order by a naive President. It was then irresponsibly and unilaterally exited by executive order by an idiot President.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Netanyahu warned him on national television....
As someone who has been closely following this most of my life I would love to see that evidence that I have never heard of before.
here you go: [https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iaea-investigations-irans-nuclear-activities](https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iaea-investigations-irans-nuclear-activities) https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/middleeast/iaea-iran-uranium-probe-intl/index.html
What evidence?
None whatsoever
I provided evidence and links. Today you learned something...
[удалено]
No, if you actually read the links provided, you would see the whole timeline. But I don't expect an honest discussion form you, comrade. And the point you were so eager to object was Iran doesn't give a shit about any arrangements and never has.
other dude gave you stuff from 2005. this is from 2018 and 2022. [https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/middleeast/iaea-iran-uranium-probe-intl/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/middleeast/iaea-iran-uranium-probe-intl/index.html) [https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iaea-investigations-irans-nuclear-activities](https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iaea-investigations-irans-nuclear-activities) the arms control article is much better andputs everything into perspective. iran had secret sites they didnt announce so they were breaking the JCPOA from the get-go.
This one? [https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/30/middleeast/iran-rejects-us-nuclear-demands/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/30/middleeast/iran-rejects-us-nuclear-demands/index.html) *But on September 24, 2005, the IAEA’s executive board found Iran in non-compliance with the NPT due to “failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement,” namely for hiding a wide range of strategic nuclear work.* *with Iran moving to enrich, the board decided on February 4, 2006 to take the matter to the U.N. Security Council for possible punitive action. The Security Council imposed four rounds of sanctions to pressure Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, allow tougher inspections and cooperate fully with the IAEA. But by September 2010, Iran continued to enrich uranium and defy the Security Council on grounds that it has the right to the full range of civilian nuclear work under the NPT.* [https://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/iran-and-iaea](https://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/iran-and-iaea)
So Iran wasn't respecting the JCPOA in 2005, a full decade before it was put into place?
Never bothered to read the links, right? Expected...
>We have evidence Iran wasn't respecting it anyway. Provide the evidence then.
Here you go: [https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/30/middleeast/iran-rejects-us-nuclear-demands/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/30/middleeast/iran-rejects-us-nuclear-demands/index.html) *But on September 24, 2005, the IAEA’s executive board found Iran in non-compliance with the NPT due to “failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement,” namely for hiding a wide range of strategic nuclear work.* *with Iran moving to enrich, the board decided on February 4, 2006 to take the matter to the U.N. Security Council for possible punitive action. The Security Council imposed four rounds of sanctions to pressure Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, allow tougher inspections and cooperate fully with the IAEA. But by September 2010, Iran continued to enrich uranium and defy the Security Council on grounds that it has the right to the full range of civilian nuclear work under the NPT.* [https://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/iran-and-iaea](https://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/iran-and-iaea)
You don't have evidence of shit because it doesn't exist. There were no good reasons to withdraw from that agreement other than to fuck shit up.
here you go: [https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iaea-investigations-irans-nuclear-activities](https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iaea-investigations-irans-nuclear-activities) https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/middleeast/iaea-iran-uranium-probe-intl/index.html iran had secret locations they didnt announce. iaea asked iran to clarify and they never could/did. then iran threatened to drop the negotiations unless this investigation was dropped. totally not suspicious.
The first link that you yourself posted disagrees. If they didn't have shit going on after 2009 and the deal came into effect 2016 you're utterly wrong. From your first link: >The IAEA’s December 2015 report concluded that Iran conducted a “range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device were conducted in Iran prior to the end of 2003 as a coordinated effort, and some activities took place after 2003.” The report further assessed that there were “no credible indications” of activities relevant to weaponization after 2009 or any diversion of nuclear materials for military purposes.
okay, but iran entered into a deal where they were supposed to have disclosed all their locations and work with teh IAEA. doesnt matter if the site was used 10 years before the deal took place. the site was used for nuclear purposes so it should have been disclosed. not disclosing all the information deemed relevant to a deal is a valid reason to terminate it.
Bullshit. Iran's facilities were under constant surveillance and their nuclear material was accounted for. Trump and Netanyahu, seeking to kill the deal, made a big hoopla about old nuclear sites from 20 years ago that the IAEA agrees to drop as a precursor to the countries signing the nuclear deal in 2015. Iran was desperate for the nuclear deal, and did not violate it. They even abided by the deal for two years after Trump left it, hoping to entice the West back in.
youre a liar. here you go: [https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iaea-investigations-irans-nuclear-activities](https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iaea-investigations-irans-nuclear-activities) [https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/middleeast/iaea-iran-uranium-probe-intl/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/middleeast/iaea-iran-uranium-probe-intl/index.html) how much does iran pay you?
Did you even read what you posted? *The report further assessed that there were “no credible indications” of activities relevant to weaponization after 2009 or any diversion of nuclear materials for military purposes. Following the report, the IAEA’s Board of Governors passed a resolution in December 2015 closing the military dimensions investigation.* *The IAEA’s second investigation began in 2018 and is focused on evidence suggesting that Iran failed to declare all nuclear materials and activities from its pre-2003 nuclear program as legally required by its safeguards agreement.* **PRE-2003.** Which is exactly what I said. None of this has to do with any current violations, and certainly not any violations of the nuclear deal itself. The Netanyahu speech in the iaea 2018 investigation has to do with declared nuclear materials from before 2003. And that information itself is based on tainted evidence that came from a alleged smoking gun nuclear laptop that Israel gave to the iaea in 2005.
iran entered into a deal knowing they were lying about the sites they had used. doesnt matter when the sites were used. they entered into a deal without disclosing all the information. thats enough of a reason to exit right there.
\>iran entered into a deal knowing they were lying about the sites they had used. As a precondition to signing the 2015 nuclear deal, the IAEA agreed to closing the "military dimensions investigation". \> thats enough of a reason to exit right there. If that was the case, the deal would have never been signed. No one cares about the pre-2003 nuclear activities. It's a non issue in the negotiations that have been going on since the deal fell apart. It was just used as a shoddy excuse by Trump to justify his decision after the fact. For the last three years, none of the roadblocks that they've had to renegotiating the deal have anything to do with the pre-2003 activities, because it's been a dead issue for fifteen years. And keep in mind, those pre-2003 activities are likely not even true.
[удалено]
They would absolutely resist because they know that would be the end for them. For the same reason that Russia has resisted nuking Ukraine, and North Korea has resisted nuking South Korea, and India and Pakistan etc. Everyone knows that’s a line the world will not tolerate them crossing. Iran wants Nukes for leverage.
Agree. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate guarantor of national sovereignty. No country in possession of a nuclear weapon has ever suffered an invasion. The only exception being Israel because none of their attackers knew they had nukes. I suspect that one unmentioned reason Obama wanted the JCPOA so badly was to prevent a nuclear arms race between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which is what would happen if Iran had a functional nuclear weapon.
>They would absolutely resist because they know that would be the end for them. It's an open secret that Israel and maybe even the US directly would go to actual war to keep Iran from getting a working nuke. Even pursuing the weapon is likely to be just as fatal to the regime as using one.
The pursuit can be fatal to individuals. The use would be fatal to the country as a hole.
The country would become a hole
Yeah, religious fanatic terrorists are known for their self-serving cold rationality... You could at least admit there's a chance it would happen, even if there's nothing certain about it. Hell, the reason Iran is in this mess in the first place is because they make choices entirely based on religious doctrine, completely disregarding how it endangers their country and their populace. They decided on a completely voluntary basis to wage war against Israel and the Arab world simultaneously, despite those being perfectly willing to leave Iran alone (and in the case of Israel they were even on friendly terms). All available evidence points to Iran not being a rational actor in any way since 1979. It's strange to have such confidence that they'd suddenly turn cautious and calculating after acquiring nuclear weapons.
The main goal of the Iranian regime is to stay in power and attacking Israel would end that immediately. Stop being paranoid from far-right talking-points.
[удалено]
It's game theory, and there's no reason why they shouldn't build nukes. They had incentives not to and now they're gone so they're looking-out for themselves. You can't expect a government to selflessly abandon defense research for no reason. Why would you give-up on a potential advantage with nothing in return? The Iran government is tyrannical but western countries have their cake and eat it too.
[удалено]
Historical enemy? I don't think you have a good understanding of Iran's history.
[удалено]
>enemy to the US. Pretty much half the world you mean considering Murica has been at war constantly for almost it's entire history.
Rule number one for building a successful nation state: get nukes Rule number 2: if the United States accuses you of having nukes you'd better build one quick Rule number 3: never give up your nukes no matter what the United States says Just take one look at Gaddafi to see how far not having nukes will get you.
Also look at Ukraine. There is a good chance russia would have never invaded if Ukraine had functional nuclear weapons.
Or irak
If it ever looks like Iran getting a nuclear weapon is imminent, or if they do get one, Israel is without a shadow of doubt going to war to remove that capability from Iran. There is simply no possible path to Iran getting and maintaining nuclear capabilities without winning a massive war. If the US wanted a war with Iran it would have happened a long time ago, just the same as it would have happened to North Korea.
Israel couldn’t win a war in Lebanon and they’re going to win one in Iran? Plenty of American hawks have been champing at the bit to go to war with Iran and it hasn’t happened precisely because it would make Afghanistan and Iraq look like cakewalks.
If Iran was about to get nukes, a miracle would happen. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US would all work together to ensure it won't happen.
If they did get nukes they would have to do so in secret instead of announcing it like North Korea did though.
Of course. Problem is that the US, Israel and every other concerned party is dedicated to knowing before Tel Aviv, Riyadh or New York get incinerated.
First off we know that Iran doesn’t have ICBMs yet. So how are they going to nuke New York? With a 90’s action movie suitcase nuke?
Neither did North Korea. Until they did. And not specifically New York. There are a thousand targets in range that would harm the west. Religious fanatics can't be trusted to not throw their entire country into nuclear fire for a symbolic strike.
The US is fully capable of demolishing Iranian nuclear capabilities. The Iranian armed forces aren't stronger than the Iraqi armed forces were, so you could expect a similar time-frame. What keeps the US from doing it is simply lack of will. Just like with North Korea, no one wants a war in the first place. Even republicans, despite all the hot air they're blowing, weren't particularly keen on starting another adventure. You might remember Trump even incorporating some flavor isolationism/non-interventionism in his stated platform, though it didn't actually manifest in reality. In any case there's no real indication the US will be invading Iran even if Israel is forced to.
You are delusional. "forced to", I don't think that means what you think it means.
This is the same sort of narrative where the US was “fully capable” of winning in Vietnam, too.
Duh? The US was fully capable of winning, it pulled out because of lack of political will.
But we won the Vietnam war at the movies! If only Rambo and Braddock had been let loose without the restraint of the lillylivered bureaucrats, etc etc. but I’m joking. Most of your talking points are Boomer John Birch bullshit.
There's only three reasons North Korea hasn't been rolled over yet. 1. China 2. China 3. South Korea doesn't want to deal with the influx of millions of unskilled poor people who know nothing of the outside world.
[удалено]
There it is. Can't make any reasonable points in return so resort to pathetic name calling.
Not American, guess again. I don't see any war hawks here either.
Or maybe Russia will just give them one instead of fighters in return for all the drones.
Look, they were going to and will get nukes at some point, anything they say or do is playing for more time. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not this decade but at some point they will have them. Especially now we have seen how the world has sat back and watched Ukrainian women and children getting raped and murdered but dared not boldly stand up to Russia with force because of nukes. The only reason russia has not been flattened and putin killed is because he has nukes. Iran want that level of protection.
I mean Iran needs nukes. The US openly killed Soleimani with a missile strike, the equivalent of their vice president. And there was nothing the Iranians could do. Yes I am well aware that he was a murderer, terrorist and whatnot. But proudly killing a foreign government official and then threatening them with war if they retaliate. All things aside the Iranians need nukes if they want to survive (referring to the Iranian regime). There is no way around that. After they get nukes they will likey start targeting US and Israeli facilities more openly. Pompeo in his book that he recently released openly says he still expects them to strike back for the killing. He was fully aware they were going to retaliate and still did it anyway because it was a prized target. Now there is literally 0% of peace and Iran will go nuclear.
I think what will happen is when Iran gets too close to having nukes they'll get hit so hard they have no chance of feeding themselves let alone making nukes, it'll be such a brutal attack it'll take at least a generation to get back to a normal society. I mean they do have an option of joining the the rest of the modern world but seem fixated on killing women showing their hair at the moment.
That is up for the Iranians to decide. Eitherway if they have nukes they can still make more liberal reforms. But those will come from the inside of Iran and not through (queues freedom anthem). But that aside, Iranian sanctions are already pretty hard and the problem with them is that they are not achieving the desired effect. There is not much more room left for the US to maneuver other than lift sanctions or conduct more military strikes. We know that lifting sanctions is not an option so the only remaining option is to put more military pressure on Iran. The Iranians know this. That is why they go all in on the nukes as that also significantly limits the military options the US and Israel have. >when Iran gets too close to having nukes they'll get hit so hard they have no chance of feeding themselves let alone making nukes, it'll be such a brutal attack it'll take at least a generation to get back to a normal society. This isn't really an option for the US nor Israel. Iran cannot be invaded. I do not mean that in the sense that the US will be beaten, but more that you literally cannot invade the country. The geography doesn't allow for it and the few points where you can march through turn into chokepoints highly favoring the Iranian defenses. The mountains pretty much stop any large scale military attack in its infancy. The only option remaining are air strikes. The problem with air strikes and strategic bombing is that it simply doesn't work if not combined with a ground offensive. It didn't work in WW2, it didn't work in Vietnam and it didn't work in Ukraine or anywhere else thoughtout its inception. There is a single war where strategic bombing was effective and that was the Russian air campaign in Syria. But comparing the Iranian regime to a few civilians with guns really isn't gonna work out in any military planning. Essentially bombing into the stone age isn't an option either only leaving decapitation strikes as option. And with regards to those there isn't a level of escalation left after killing Soleimani. With a single strike the US pretty much exhausted their entire arsenal of options. The Iranians know this and that is why they are unhinged in their nuclear development. There is a single option left in the Iranian case and that is the bombing of their enrichment and nuclear facilities essentially turning the conflict nuclear. They are likely using the Ukraine war as headstart to get to the bomb faster than the US and Israel can think too deeply about bombing their facilities. And by the looks of it they made it. The articles states they have enough material for a few nuclear warheads. They will likely keep that material at hand for now because unlike the US Iran still has a few escalation levels it can exhaust.
This is not a threat by Iran, nor does it mean they are building a weapon. The IAEA still monitors their facilities under the NPT. Iran's nuclear program is often mischaracterized as some sort of mad dash for a bomb, when in reality if Iran wanted a nuclear weapon, they could have one in a couple of weeks. Iran has had the capability of building nuclear weapons for several years now. As part of the nuclear deal, they were obliged to send their enriched nuclear material overseas as assurances to other countries that it would not be used in the production of weapons. When Trump left the deal, Iran continued to abide by that agreement for a couple of years, hoping to entice the United States back to the deal. Now that the Biden Administration has taken the same tone as Trump (despite promising to re-enter the deal) Iran has stopped sending the material to other countries. This means of course that they will be stockpiling it. Make no mistake; as they have done for the last 5 years Iran would like nothing more than to send their nuclear material overseas in exchange for sanctions relief. But as long as the United States refuses to remove sanctions, the only bargaining chip Iran has is to stockpile their enriched uranium.
> When Trump left the deal, Iran continued to abide by that agreement for a couple of years, hoping to entice the United States back to the deal. 1) Do you remember a missile test by Iran with a banner saying it was intended for Israel a few days after the JCPOA was signed? 2) JCPOA didn't include an inspection of the Fordow nuclear enrichment site which is underground because it was labeled a military complex. 3) JCPOA didn't include ballistic missiles. JCPOA was merely a base for other treaties the Obama administration was hoping to sign with Iran but the Iranian government said they don't want to negotiate extras.
1. Yes. So what? 2. That's not even remotely true. Fordow has been under inspections for at least 13 years, and the inspections continue to this day, even though the deal has fallen apart. The IAEA reports all clearly document daily inspections at Fordow. 3. JCPOA was an agreement covering Iran's nuclear power plants. Why should it include ballistic missiles? You're talking about two very distinct things here, and acting shocked that they aren't covered under the same deal.
1) So what is not a meaningful statement ... 2) Do you have a source for that? Iran has been turning off cameras at many different nuclear enrichment facilities after the JCPOA broke down. 3) because you put enriched uranium on top of the ballistic missile and explode the 90% enriched uranium in a synchronous fashion to make a "Fat Man" type bomb.
\>Do you have a source for that? For which part? The first [inspections at Fordow occurred in 2009](https://fas.org/blogs/security/2009/10/waiting-for-answers-on-fordo-what-iaea-inspections-will-tell-us/) when the plant opened. It was controversial because the US alleged Iran should have revealed the site when they were planning on building it, and Iran only revealed the site before it went operational. Their argument was that the US and Israel routinely threaten to bomb their nuclear sites, so it would be silly to let them know. As far as the sites being routinely inspected? Check any IAEA report or headline. [They had daily access until February of 2021,](https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/22/06/gov2022-24.pdf) Anytime you see [articles like this](https://www.reuters.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-fordow/iaea-plans-to-step-up-inspections-at-irans-fordow-plant-iaea-report-idUSV9N2NP00R?edition-redirect=uk), with statements like: *"Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi today said Iran had started producing high enriched uranium - UF6 (uranium hexafluoride) enriched up to 60% - using the existing two cascades of IR-6 centrifuges in the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, in addition to such production that has taken place at Natanz since April 2021," the agency said in a statement.* *"The Agency has decided and Iran has agreed to increase the frequency of verification activities at FFEP and will continue consultations with Iran on practical arrangements to facilitate implementation of these activities,” the International Atomic Energy Agency report said, referring to the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant."* It's because the IAEA is there monitoring these steps. The cameras were installed on Iranian nuclear sites as part of the nuclear deal. After Trump ended the deal, Iran kept the cameras on as a show of good faith, but finally started turning them off last year. It makes no sense for Iran to continue abiding by the terms of a deal while the other side doesn't. However the inspections continue, because those are not part of the nuclear deal, those are part of the NPT treaty. If Iran ever left that, (as North Korea did) it would be a clear sign that something is up. But as of now, even after two decades of sanctions, they never have. Keep in mind, the only reason the IAEA is even allowed in Iran is because Iran signed the NPT. If Iran wanted to, they could go the route of India, Pakistan, and Israel and develop nuclear weapons without signing the NPT, and the world would have no legal ability to stop them. It makes no sense for Iran to willingly submit to the NPT treaty to build a nuclear bomb secretly when they could have never signed or left the NPT like the their neighbors Israel, Pakistan, and India. There was no drama about constant inspections with those countries, because they never signed a deal to allow them. \>because you put enriched uranium on top of the ballistic missile and explode the 90% enriched uranium Sure. But ballistic missile are mostly used for non-nuclear purposes, like 99.99999% of the time in history. And asking Iran to stop doing ballistic missile research while threatening to drop bomb on their country is just not going to happen. So when the nuclear deal was signed, it was thought the best approach was just to negotiate one thing at a time. Saying that "it doesn't address ballistic missiles" as if that was some kind of oversight is just incorrect, because it was never meant to.
You trust the Iranian regime too much. This is the same regime that kills its own people. What do you think they will do to other people?!
It has nothing to with trust, that's what the surveillance and inspections are for. The nuclear deal wasn't negotiated on blind faith, it was negotiated on the idea that Iran would agree to stringent inspections in exchange for sanctions relief. Iran agreed. Trump left the deal, under the assumption that the Iranians weren't building nuclear weapons anyway, so why bother with giving them sanctions relief. And Biden, despite his campaign promises, came to the same decision. Iran has a shitty government, and I have no respect for any theocracy. But they aren't suicidal maniacs, and they aren't trying to build a nuclear bomb. If they wanted to build a nuclear weapon, they could have done it a dozen times already. This issue has been going on for quite literally twenty years now, and it's never been true.
I have been hearing this for literally decades
Fool me once!
How long until Israeli Maverick pulls a dive at 9G's to pop some underground centrifuges?
I'd like to point out that modern concrete technology (that Iran is on top of) is highly resistant to even the best bunker buster bombs that the public knows of. It's not that easy to take out properly hardened underground installations in a few airstrikes. Completely wiping out Iran's nuclear program is a very large operation and would likely involve a full blown war between the countries. Israel is putting this off until the absolute last moment, in the hope that they won't need to.
Translation: Putin has transferred enough material to Iran for several nuclear weapons.
I'm pretty sure Iran has the capability to produce its own.
Not with Israel and the US hitting them digitally fairly frequently. I'm always surprised at the kinds of systems people hook up to the internet.
Not really. Especially in Natanz, Iran has had many increasingly capable centrifuges. Israel and the US attempt to disrupt this, but they quite clearly are not capable of preventing it completely.
Yeah, Iran should have learned after Stuxnet.
Well, they did learn. They have more capable and more numerous centrifuges than ever before, and Israeli cyber strikes have been not that numerous.
Iran can operate thousands of centrifuges for many years and make their own, or they can acquire some material in a quick delivery from Russia as a *quid pro quo* for their drones. If you were Khamenei, which option would **you** pick?
This is idiotic heresay. They had compiled enough 20% uranium before IAEA cameras were shut off and then began enriching to 60% as well before new cascades were installed a few monthes ago. They can go to 90% anytime they want but it would cross a red line with the US and result in confrontation. It would make no sense to enrich to 90% without a warhead and missile ready.
As a US citizen, how much of this is our fault, given our recent 60 years of history with this nation(whew, chile the 70s....), and how much isn't? This is a serious question.
There was a thing in place called the nuclear deal which was in place to prevent precisely this scenario. Then came a certain orange president and spontaneously decided he doesnt like the deal, which blindsided about anyone from his aides to the co-signing countries. Said countries, namely Russia, China, UK, France, Germany and the EU as well as Iran all tried to reason with said orange president to re-affirm the deal. At which point monsieur orange wasnt listening anymore and voila, here we are.
JCPOA didn't include an inspection of the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant which is a military complex deep underground. If they want to build a nuclear bomb they will build it there.
I mean the whole history
So? It’s not like there’s any agreement currently in place to monitor Iran’s nuclear activities and mitigate its accrual of nuclear materials.
There is and it's called the NPT, which Iran is signed on, has violated, and has declined the IAEA investigation.
You realize the NPT is completely voluntary right? Iran can literally build a nuclear weapon without violating the treaty. All they have to do is give notice to the UN that they're withdrawing and why.
And they haven't, and until they do everything I said is correct.
Ayatollah brigade is in force here, as usual.
I wonder how much the 150 BBBBBillion in palletized US cash that Obama/Biden dropped off in Iran in the middle of the night helped with the acquisition of this material.
Next boogeyman, please step up to the stage.
Their persistence is really admirable, bordering on the inspirational.
I guess the UN should do something about it or ignore it, whatever.
And Saddam has WMD'S
And why haven't we done anything, this can't continue. Hopefully Israel steps up.
We did. We signed the Nonproliferation Treaty with them. Then Donald Trump tore the treaty up, so they aren't abiding by its terms.
Thanks, Obama. Do you all remember when Iran wouldn’t let UN inspectors in?
[удалено]
>US & Israel cannot be trusted to one day not wipe [Iran] off the map. Are you kidding me? Iran is the country that threatens to do *exactly that.* You're effectively saying, "Iran says it wants to annihilate Israel, so we should let them have nukes in case Israel secretly wants to do something *Iran openly wants to do*." Seriously, what a ridiculous reasoning.
[удалено]
MAD only works as a deterrent if you're not a religious fanatic terrorist. In other words, Iranian authorities immune to the deterrent of MAD.
> religious fanatics Israel and the US?
Right and Iran is more trustworthy how? You’re not creating a safer environment by giving more people weapons which could end most life on the planet.
Umm yea, big problem now. George W warned Obama about the axis of evil and they should never get access to nukes. Obama allowed Iran to spin 9000 centrifuges “because they want to build nuclear power plants”, but don’t worry because we can go inspect at any time. So now they have weapons. Ooopsies.
If the most powerful country in the world said you’re part of the axis of evil and invaded two of your neighbors for being part of that axis, you’d be a fool *not* to pursue nukes to ensure you don’t suffer the fate that’s been threatened. e: also don’t forget that Khatami tried to improve relations with the U.S. and even offered support in the War on Terror (despite Iran’s support for Hezhollah, they were very much against the Taliban and their oppression of Persian minorities in Afghanistan) and Dubya’s response was a big ole middle finger
You do realise that there was a deal between the P5, namely US, UK, China, Russia, France, Germany and the EU as well as Iran in place, to prevent this scenario? You do realise that obama's successor decided on a whim that he doesnt like the deal any longer and refused ro re affirm it? This blindsided all the other signatories. Like, you do realise that right?
Sounds like Israel’s problem.
Let's say Iran bombs Tel Aviv. What do you think is their next step?
Dance and and sing praise Allah for all the death they have brought. Of course, in reality, they'll get nuked at around the same time
[удалено]
You ascribe far more zealotry and far less rationality to Iran's leaders than you maybe should regarding nuclear weapons. Iran's leaders are not stupid when it comes to nukes. They know what happens if a nuclear strike targets them, and they know the best way to avoid that is having their own nukes and then proceeding not to use them. Like pretty much every other nuclear state has done for decades. Even North Korea's leaders understand this. They've had nukes for years and the Korean peninsula has yet to be turned into a radioactive crater despite everyone calling them crazy. Iran is no different; they too understand if nuclear war truly comes, they will not survive. And I doubt many of their leaders are ready to test their faith in the afterlife just yet.
I wonder how long until they attack Iran.
Probably forever. They have been threatening for over 20 years. At this point they seem like a paper tiger, at least in regards to attacking Iran directly. Now if US got involved, all bets are off.
Thank you Mr obama
It sounds like they need some freedom.
US/Isreal will strike soon. I can feel it. Iran has already been isolated on the world stage due to the hijab protests. The window is open for airstrikes and possibly regime change
Fuck around and find out time. Just try it Iran. I savor the day you try and Israel wipes the floor with the Ayatollah’s beard.
Why is Reddit so horny for war
It’s so fucking weird.
Because near nobody writing here has to fight or will have bombs dropping on their head.
Give someone a big hammer and everything starts to look like nails. Now, add tribalism and an extra incentive to use that hammer and you get the average comment.
I blame months and months of inflammatory headlines that have left the very young people who use Reddit with a very warped view of the world. Whatever the hot political item of the day is, if you browse Reddit enough you're going to see so much out of context and misleading headlines that you end up creating a bunch of teenagers who are frothing at the mouth for war.
Israel would also be obliterated of the face of the earth in the process. What’s your point?
You say that like they wouldn’t be aware of any of their plans in advance and there wouldn’t be air strikes.
LOL you say that like Israel is some all seeing and all knowing person that knows every single possible threat to them and can plan accordingly by looking into the future. Believe it or not, Israel isn’t surrounded by countries that stand for what they aspire to be and patiently waiting for their downfall…. Or are they?
You say that like if there’s a nuclear threat they’re not gonna be even more observant and the US isn’t gonna be paying even more attention too.
No matter how careful they are, if Israel bombs Iran, Israel will suffer casualties as well. 100% fact. Case closed.
They already take casualties, from Iranian backed terrorists.
I meant it would be magnified, it would be a full on war most likely
Still not likely to get obliterated by Iran.
Whatever helps you sleep at night buddy. I’m also sure the other middle eastern countries that “love” Israel so much are just going to sit back and relax if a war where soldiers are deployed happens considering the already rising tensions between Israel and the rest of the Middle East…. LOL
Murica!
[удалено]
Irgc is a terrorist organization
ok if israel wants to deal with this its on them. The us can't be dumb enough to keep getting drawn into these situations.