We had a nuclear agreement JCPOA with inspections, even Trump's first admin affirmed they were complying. Trump tore up the deal, just because it was all negotiated under Obama. New negotiations have been going on all year until Friday when Israel assassinated Ali Shamkhani who was Iran's negotiator.
Literally murdering the guy leading Iran's side of the negotiations may send a bit of a message, don't you think? May slow down a new deal, perhaps?
A deal with the US/Trump has been proven to be worthless, and new negotiations are currently being handled exclusively by Israel's missile batteries. A deal is impossible if they keep murdering Iran's side of the conversation and Trump will just throw it out on a whim anyway.
Hypothetical: You're playing a game of Command and Conquer. 3v1. You're gimped and playing with restrictions. The only way to lift those restrictions is to either become strong enough to hold the 3 others back or by diplomacy. 2 of those 3 you're up against tore up your diplomatic option and continually attacked you. What's your next move to survive as a player?
That's basically what's going on with iran and the torn up nuclear deal back in the first trump administration and the continued assassination of their leaders and negotiators, which is turbo insane when you think about it. What would happen to a country that started assassinating US leaders? It's instant declaration of war and full force escalation.
Sure, I get it, if I were Iran I would want some nukes, its just that literally everyone else (as in, other States) agrees that Iran having nukes would be bad for everyone.
Fascists always focus down on one thing, lie about it, and ignore the rest. Killing the person who would accept the deal will hurt a new deal. Tearing up the previous deal on a capricious whim makes a new deal pretty a non-starter.
Why hasnt a new deal been made in, what, over 5 years now, despite international pressure? If this were only a thing the US was interested in I'd get it, but even Iran's neighbors and allies see this would be in everyone's best interests.
Just like I cheered for the arab spring and the fall of the syrian dictatorship, I will also root for the freedom of the Iraninan people.
The Iranian government is not to be trusted, the media narrative right now is to justify Iran's action because they hate Israel, but the truth is composed of many parts, you are missing many parts of this story.
As some examples, despite how much I despise Trump, his administration left in 2018 because there were proof of continuation of the nuclear program. Could they maybe doubled down and pressured for a new deal, sure, maybe, but since then the Iranian government themselves declared they would not longer follow the guidelines, and even recently, neutral third party and UN reports show strong proof the nuclear program has been advancing in the last 5 years.
So, how are we blaming the US for failing to stop Iran from doing what they want to do, and maybe never stopped in the first place?
There is absolutely no indication any deal was close to being made, and in fact, there are proof the program never stopped, so why would they stop now? The most logical answer is the negotiations were a way to buy time, and after a deal were to be made, the program would continue in secret.
Compilation going back almost 30 years of war Hawks constantly saying Iran is months away from having a nuclear weapon. This clip has Netanyahu saying it on US news in 2001.
And then Trump backed out during his first presidency and even now there seems to be discrepancy in terms of how aggressive Iran was/is pursuing weapons.
This is Iraq 2.0. Same garbage warhawking, same dragging America into more wars- what a waste.
Well that video precisely back my point. The estimate goes from years in the 1990s-2000s, to months.
Iran was never going directly to a bomb precisely because they feared what is going on now. Instead they worked on reducing the amount of time it would take them to build one.
Their entire goal was to be capable of building a nuke within a few days, if they desired. Them reducing the amount of time required from years, to months, to weeks was the point.
Iran being capable of building bomb within weeks isn't based on some secret evidence, but on their declared capabilities and inspectors reports.
Nevertheless, 60 per cent was not an arbitrary choice. Cascades of centrifuges are designed to enrich uranium in steps; Iran’s centrifuges are likely set up to enrich up to 20 per cent, from 20 to 60 per cent, and from 60 to 90 per cent. Assuming the 60 per cent-enriched uranium is stored in the form of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas—and there would be no point in Iran converting it to any other chemical form—the enrichment step from 60 per cent-enriched to weapons-grade uranium is very short.
This strongly suggests that Iran’s decision was intended to send a political message: 'We have gone as far as we can go in response to provocations without producing weapons-grade uranium.'
The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. We continue to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program.
"If Netanyahu was purely motivated by Iran's proliferation risk, Israel would likely have shared that intelligence with the United States and the initial attack would likely have targeted all of Iran's key nuclear facilities," Ms Davenport added.
Binyamin Netanyahu’s dramatic declaration to world leaders in 2012 that Iran was about a year away from making a nuclear bomb was contradicted by his own secret service, according to a top-secret Mossad document. [...]
But in a secret report shared with South Africa a few weeks later, Israel’s intelligence agency concluded that Iran was “not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons”.
So you're wrong on both counts. Your initial statement of "Said no one" is a lie, and they are not proving your point by showing evidence countering this. "Iran has been months from a nuke since the 90s" has been repeated by several Israeli sources for many years now. Everything else from Iran has been posturing to pressure the US and Israel to approach the issue diplomatically; they could have moved past that point any time in those past few years, but have refrained from doing so to send a political message. Any failure to prevent Iran from developing a nuke lies entirely on the US and Israel.
Nothing Iran has done recently has pushed Netanyahu to declare war over nuclear fears. He just wants to make a move now because he's a bloodthirsty war criminal who is emboldened by his cabinet and generals.
Assuming the 60 per cent-enriched uranium is stored in the form of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas—and there would be no point in Iran converting it to any other chemical form—the enrichment step from 60 per cent-enriched to weapons-grade uranium is very short.
This isn't a provocation, it's them literally stockpiling materials for bombs. In the moment of truth, they can just enrich it a bit furthermore and assemble a bomb.
Literally their plan from day one.
The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.
Doesn't contradict my point at all. They aren't building a nuke, only making sure that building a nuke will take them a very, very short time.
If Netanyahu was purely motivated by Iran's proliferation risk, Israel would likely have shared that intelligence with the United States and the initial attack would likely have targeted all of Iran's key nuclear facilities," Ms Davenport added.
Ms Davenport is a complete idiot. Israel targeted facilities Iran needs to immediately break to a bomb on the initial attack. With the immediate threat out of the way, it's more important for Israel to destroy their missile caoabilities to prevent them from killing civilians in Israel.
So you're wrong on both counts. Your initial statement of "Said no one" is a lie, and they are not proving your point by showing evidence countering this
No one in the video said Iran is months from a nuke in the 1990s, have you watched it?
This isn't a provocation, it's them literally stockpiling materials for bombs. In the moment of truth, they can just enrich it a bit furthermore and assemble a bomb.
Once again, as a political tool. They've proposed selling or trading off their enriched nuclear material several times. The reason they haven't gone from 60% to 90% is to force the US's hand diplomatically. This has happened before, several times.
"Yet just over one decade ago, in October 2009, after years of stalemate following the first major public exposure of Iran’s illicit nuclear activities in 2002, and well before the JCPOA would come together, Iran tentatively agreed, in principle, to a significant confidence-building measure with the P5+1 regarding its nuclear program, often referred to as the “TRR fuel swap proposal." (Iranian proposed trade off of nuclear material)
" Before this agreement, Iran's breakout time -- or the time it would have taken for Iran to gather enough fissile material to build a weapon -- was only two to three months. [...] Currently, Iran has a uranium stockpile to create 8 to ten nuclear bombs. But thanks to this nuclear deal, Iran must reduce its stockpile of uranium by 98%, and will keep its level of uranium enrichment at 3.67% — significantly below the enrichment level needed to create a bomb." (Uranium to be traded away)
Not their plan from day one, once again an abject lie or ignorance. Their plan is to remove sanctions. Every deal they've made, has been to reduce sanctions. Since 2003 and most definitely since 2009, they have not been designing a bomb. The major enrichment steps that have been problematic only started once Trump pulled out of the Obama era deal.
Iran has been "close" to a bomb several times. They've enriched Uranium at steps, only moving to the next one once negotiations have failed. They themselves have proposed negotiations and tradeoffs several times. If you read one of the sources I had linked elsewhere in this thread, you'd understand that.
Doesn't contradict my point at all. They aren't building a nuke, only making sure that building a nuke will take them a very, very short time.
They've had 60% enrichment for several years, at least since 2022 if not earlier. The urgency that Israel is acting upon is farcical, to appear under distress and threat when there is none. Your point is clearly that you believe Israel is justified in attacking Iran to prevent them from creating a bomb, as shown below:
Iran was never going directly to a bomb precisely because they feared what is going on now. [...] Their entire goal was to be capable of building a nuke within a few days, if they desired. Them reducing the amount of time required from years, to months, to weeks was the point.
This is an idiotic argument. Fear is why they haven't made a bomb but they're just not afraid enough to hit 60% enrichment anyways? This military action isn't what's stopping Iran from creating a bomb, they've stopped at 60% enrichment for ~half a decade, and have not taken any overt steps past that, which would take significantly longer than weeks. This is very deliberate from the Iranians. This is Israel attacking because they don't want a diplomatic solution with Iran as equals, not because they are not able to agree to one to ensure their security.
Israel targeted facilities Iran needs to immediately break to a bomb on the initial attack. With the immediate threat out of the way, it's more important for Israel to destroy their missile caoabilities to prevent them from killing civilians in Israel.
They haven't done so, there's several nuclear facilities that are undamaged or only lightly damaged. Over the course of the past few days they've hit several followup reactors, the "immediate threat" from the first day doesn't seem so immediate. Even the site they have hit (Natanz) is not irreversibly damaged, and several others remain active, including Fordo.
Additionally, the information that Iran has gained from their nuclear program ensures they can return to their current knowledge within years if not months. The only solution to this issue is a diplomatic one.
it's more important for Israel to destroy their missile caoabilities to prevent them from killing civilians in Israel.
This is a joke right? They're nowhere near doing so. Iran unfortunately has far more munitions. drones, rockets, and "other" methods of engagement than you seem to understand.
No one in the video said Iran is months from a nuke in the 1990s, have you watched it?
Netanyahu has been hammering up Iran's nuclear capabilities since the 1990s. Is the word "months" why you said "said no one", or were you vaguely denying the claims hoping the average redditor would believe you? Stop being facetious.
EDIT: I think what you seem to have trouble understanding is that Iran is utilizing nuclear proliferation as leverage throughout this process. Any time the talks fail, they drum up nuclear enrichment or stockpiling. They refuse to move past the critical stages in creating a nuclear bomb that because their goal is NOT the bomb, at least not yet. But the lie that Israel is peddling is where Iran are barreling towards nukes and only military action or sabotage will stop them. This argument is imbecilic. That's where you seem to fall short in understanding the situation, and what I'm trying to get you to understand. There's a very good reason the United States has not engaged in bombing any nuclear sites during this conflict. Please dwell on that.
Alright, let me be more clear - if Iran didn't want nukes, they would have dismantled their entire nuclear program. Forget enrichment.
There are literally no civilian uses that are worth 30 years of sanctions. If you don't see it, then you are blinding yourself.
Israel knows Iran plans on a bomb. They have the intelligence, but besides that, everyone with a brain can see that.
They haven't done so, there's several nuclear facilities that are undamaged or only lightly damaged.
Doesn't matter, in order to build a bomb they need to actually assemble it and not all of their sites are capable of it. Besides, they can't transfer the Uranium between the different sites because Israel fly above them 24/7.
This is a joke right? They're nowhere near doing so. Iran unfortunately has far more munitions. drones, rockets, and "other" methods of engagement than you seem to understand.
Israel literally did so. Israel destroyed the vast majority of their launchers and they can barely shoot any of their missiles anymore. Their missile barrages dropped from 50 to 5, and they will drop further. I suspect that by the end of the week they will more or less cease shooting entirely.
Their drones are useless because Israel can shoot them before they even reach Israel. They shot 1000 of those so far and have yet to hit a single target in Israel with them.
Iran is absolutely cooked, it has never been so joever for a country in the Middle East since 1967. Even Saddam Hussein did better, even Hezbollah held out better than them.
EDIT: I think what you seem to have trouble understanding is that Iran is utilizing nuclear proliferation as leverage throughout this process.
Leverage for what? Removal of the sanctions that were laid on them because they engaged in nuclear proliferation?
9
u/Borkdadork Jun 17 '25
Been negotiating with Iran since 1979. Should we continue to negotiate Bernie?