Iran to breach uranium enrichment limit.

[Nakena]

And without the American bully, Europe would be surrounded by a bunch of brutal dictators with chemical weapons, ready to be launched against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Europe.

The iraqi program got repeatedly trashed by the Israelis and the Libyan one was never really much worth a mention. Besides getting some old SCUD missiles isnt a big thing. Chemical Weapons aren't either. As for Europe we got Trident and the Force de Frappe to defend ourself. Speaking of which, its however also Europes fault for giving way too much room for people like Khomeini who was given free house in 1979. That was a mistake, and this attitude of appeasement and pandering towards radical islamists continues to this day.

[Spirit of Hope]

Iranian moves towards creating the necessary conditions to manufacture nuclear weapons that could strike sunni states and much of the western world.

Said western world proceeds to vehemently defend the Iranian regime because america might invade and toppling aggressive regime is bad while getting bombed by said regime is good. No logic.

Iran gains nothing from wildly throwing around nuclear weapons other nations, and in fact would likely get hit by nuclear weapons itself if it aimed at, Israel, France, the UK, or the US. The nations that are defending Iran are pointing out that for three years it has stuck by the agreement while the US hasn't. Toppling Iran would be incredibly difficult, probably do damage to the global economy, and result in a bunch of casualties that no one wants.

From an Iranian perspective, this makes perfect sense. Saddam Hussein was told to turn over his chemical weapons and other WMDS. He didn't. The US came in and murdered his ass. Muammar Gaddafi was told to turn over his WMDs. He did, because "Oh man, if I don't, the Americans will do to me what they did to Saddam." And, well, to quote Clinton "We came, we saw, he died." From Iran's perspective, America is a loose cannon and an international bully and they'd rather have insurance against an invasion. After all, it worked for North Korea. This is, to put it simply, their only logical option. In fact, Iran isn't the only nation that sees America as a threat. In a 2013 poll, 24% of all respondents, representing countries all over the world, said they saw America as the biggest threat to peace on Earth, followed by Pakistan (8%), China (4 or 5%, I don't exactly remember).

And without the American bully, Europe would be surrounded by a bunch of brutal dictators with chemical weapons, ready to be launched against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Europe.

What? Don't know where your getting this idea from, considering Europe has played a part in every American war ever.

[Chestaan]

If I was leader of a Nation surrounded by hostile powers allied to a superpower that continually threatens war and has military bases massed around the border, I too, would want a nuclear deterrent.

[-Ocelot-]

Iranian moves towards creating the necessary conditions to manufacture nuclear weapons that could strike sunni states and much of the western world.

Said western world proceeds to vehemently defend the Iranian regime because america might invade and toppling aggressive regime is bad while getting bombed by said regime is good. No logic.

Iran gains nothing from wildly throwing around nuclear weapons other nations, and in fact would likely get hit by nuclear weapons itself if it aimed at, Israel, France, the UK, or the US. The nations that are defending Iran are pointing out that for three years it has stuck by the agreement while the US hasn't. Toppling Iran would be incredibly difficult, probably do damage to the global economy, and result in a bunch of casualties that no one wants.

And without the American bully, Europe would be surrounded by a bunch of brutal dictators with chemical weapons, ready to be launched against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Europe.

What? Don't know where your getting this idea from, considering Europe has played a part in every American war ever.

Why should we let dictators gain access to weapons of mass destruction? In the middle east you have several nations that would gladly destroy the entire world if they believed their existence was threatened and you want to defend them? Why? Neither Europe nor America forced these governments to obtain WMDs, so why blame them when they try to do something to stop a potential global catastrophe?

Such weapons are a problem have been used in the past. Assad used them to suppress his own people and got away with it. Kim Jong Un's regime has the biggest chemical weapon arsenal in the world atm and they are willing to pretty much obliterate the entire peninsula if they feel threatened. If NK kills 20+ million Koreans tomorrow because of some incident gone wrong, will you blame America for doing nothing instead?

[Nakena]

Why should we let dictators gain access to weapons of mass destruction? In the middle east you have several nations that would gladly destroy the entire world if they believed their existence was threatened and you want to defend them? Why? Neither Europe nor America forced these governments to obtain WMDs, so why blame them when they try to do something to stop a potential global catastrophe?

Like the, uhm, Samson option?

Such weapons are a problem have been used in the past. Assad used them to suppress his own people and got away with it. Kim Jong Un's regime has the biggest chemical weapon arsenal in the world atm and they are willing to pretty much obliterate the entire peninsula if they feel threatened. If NK kills 20+ million Koreans tomorrow because of some incident gone wrong, will you blame America for doing nothing instead?

Most nations in the middle east have a stockpile of chemical weapons. Israel likely too. Assad isn't the only one, but he and Hussein were the only ones insane and ruthless enough to actually use them.

[-Ocelot-]

Why should we let dictators gain access to weapons of mass destruction? In the middle east you have several nations that would gladly destroy the entire world if they believed their existence was threatened and you want to defend them? Why? Neither Europe nor America forced these governments to obtain WMDs, so why blame them when they try to do something to stop a potential global catastrophe?

Like the, uhm, Samson option?

Such weapons are a problem have been used in the past. Assad used them to suppress his own people and got away with it. Kim Jong Un's regime has the biggest chemical weapon arsenal in the world atm and they are willing to pretty much obliterate the entire peninsula if they feel threatened. If NK kills 20+ million Koreans tomorrow because of some incident gone wrong, will you blame America for doing nothing instead?

Most nations in the middle east have a stockpile of chemical weapons. Israel likely too. Assad isn't the only one, but he and Hussein were the only ones insane and ruthless enough to actually use them.

The Samson option, yes. Would you really trust nations like Iran or NK with handling such WMDs? They would 100% trigger a global nuclear war if they were under the threat of collapse and these are nations that are aggressive and expansionist, so it's not like you can just leave them be. Iran wants to destroy Saudi Arabia and NK wants to control South Korea. Things are stable now but this might not be the case in the future, for whatever reason.

[Spirit of Hope]

Iran gains nothing from wildly throwing around nuclear weapons other nations, and in fact would likely get hit by nuclear weapons itself if it aimed at, Israel, France, the UK, or the US. The nations that are defending Iran are pointing out that for three years it has stuck by the agreement while the US hasn't. Toppling Iran would be incredibly difficult, probably do damage to the global economy, and result in a bunch of casualties that no one wants.


What? Don't know where your getting this idea from, considering Europe has played a part in every American war ever.

Why should we let dictators gain access to weapons of mass destruction? In the middle east you have several nations that would gladly destroy the entire world if they believed their existence was threatened and you want to defend them? Why? Neither Europe nor America forced these governments to obtain WMDs, so why blame them when they try to do something to stop a potential global catastrophe?

Such weapons are a problem have been used in the past. Assad used them to suppress his own people and got away with it. Kim Jong Un's regime has the biggest chemical weapon arsenal in the world atm and they are willing to pretty much obliterate the entire peninsula if they feel threatened. If NK kills 20+ million Koreans tomorrow because of some incident gone wrong, will you blame America for doing nothing instead?

1) Iran isn't a dictatorship, its hybrid theocracy/democracy.
2) They don't want to destroy the world, they want nuclear weapons to deter an invasion (Just like every other nation that has nuclear weapons)
3) The US was the ones who encouraged them to get nuclear weapons, by pulling out of the deal that would have kept Iran from getting nuclear weapons. And then threatening to invade Iran.

I would agree we shouldn't let Iran get nuclear weapons, which is why I supported the agreement that was established. It effectively neutered any ability for Iran to get nuclear weapons. But then President Trump withdrew, for which I do blame him. Iran continued to adhere to the deal for years after the US withdrew. Now that we have, again, threatened Iran they are talking about going back to working on highly enriched uranium.

Iran is at question here, not Syria or North Korea. But if you want to discuss them, the US's actions in Iraq, and by withdrawing from this deal are what makes it so hard to get those nations to the bargaining table.

I would hardly sit back if North Korea decided to try and obliterate South Korea. This is another area where I blame President Trump, since he called off joint exercises with South Korea and gained nothing of advantage from North Korea.

[Aclion]

We can get that with a stealth bomber.

You do realize Iran has done a very good job of hardening it's structures against conventional attacks?
And if we were to launch a conventional attack, it would almost certainly result in Iran trying to close down the strait through which most of the worlds oil is shipped

Well that's one way to deal with climate change.

[Nakena]

The Samson option, yes. Would you really trust nations like Iran or NK with handling such WMDs? They would 100% trigger a global nuclear war if they were under the threat of collapse and these are nations that are aggressive and expansionist, so it's not like you can just leave them be. Iran wants to destroy Saudi Arabia and NK wants to control South Korea. Things are stable now but this might not be the case in the future, for whatever reason.

I do believe nuclear weapons should be as restricted as possible. In a perfect world to the permanent five members of the UN Security Council.

[Zrhajan]

The Samson option, yes. Would you really trust nations like Iran or NK with handling such WMDs? They would 100% trigger a global nuclear war if they were under the threat of collapse and these are nations that are aggressive and expansionist, so it's not like you can just leave them be. Iran wants to destroy Saudi Arabia and NK wants to control South Korea. Things are stable now but this might not be the case in the future, for whatever reason.

I do believe nuclear weapons should be as restricted as possible. In a perfect world to the permanent five members of the UN Security Council.

In a perfect world, there would be no nuclear weapons.

[Nakena]

I do believe nuclear weapons should be as restricted as possible. In a perfect world to the permanent five members of the UN Security Council.

In a perfect world, there would be no nuclear weapons.

But those are theoreticals. Fact is that the proliferation of nuclear weapons proceeds and that is not desireable when malicious actors such as the Islamic Republic gain access to it.

[Luziyca]

I do believe nuclear weapons should be as restricted as possible. In a perfect world to the permanent five members of the UN Security Council.

In a perfect world, there would be no nuclear weapons.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, when you have a country that seems determined to break all its agreements with you and start a war against you just because you feel like that deal did not go far enough, it makes sense for Iran to resume enriching uranium and develop a nuclear program again. And even if the next administration in the US tries to re-implement the deal, the damage has been done.

[Tokora]

I think I know how we could've avoided this. *cough* deal *cough*

[Zrhajan]

In a perfect world, there would be no nuclear weapons.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, when you have a country that seems determined to break all its agreements with you and start a war against you just because you feel like that deal did not go far enough, it makes sense for Iran to resume enriching uranium and develop a nuclear program again. And even if the next administration in the US tries to re-implement the deal, the damage has been done.

Oh yeah. I have a hard time believing that Iranian hardliners, who already protested massively over the original deal, will be any more charitable to a revised deal. In point of fact, I rather doubt that at this point Iran will make any new deals on their atomic program, because the US has very conclusively shown that they can't be trusted to keep a deal.

[Luziyca]

Agreed.

Unfortunately, when you have a country that seems determined to break all its agreements with you and start a war against you just because you feel like that deal did not go far enough, it makes sense for Iran to resume enriching uranium and develop a nuclear program again. And even if the next administration in the US tries to re-implement the deal, the damage has been done.

Oh yeah. I have a hard time believing that Iranian hardliners, who already protested massively over the original deal, will be any more charitable to a revised deal. In point of fact, I rather doubt that at this point Iran will make any new deals on their atomic program, because the US has very conclusively shown that they can't be trusted to keep a deal.

Agreed.

The way things are going, the only way Iran will probably agree to another deal barring any sort of American invasion is after a few decades when the scars from this betrayal have passed, and I sincerely hope by that point that China becomes the dominant power instead of the US.

[Major-Tom]

We had a deal in place, and we bear part of the responsibility for this because of our decision to arbitrarily withdraw.

[Nakena]

We had a deal in place, and we bear part of the responsibility for this because of our decision to arbitrarily withdraw.

Hot take: the Mullahs are playing the long game. They know they could get it in the end anyways with the deal. Now they need no longer pretenses. Bolton probably calculates this, that the time window to prevent them or do anything in the middle east altogether is about to close real soon.

[Fartsniffage]

We had a deal in place, and we bear part of the responsibility for this because of our decision to arbitrarily withdraw.

Hot take: the Mullahs are playing the long game. They know they could get it in the end anyways with the deal. Now they need no longer pretenses. Bolton probably calculates this, that the time window to prevent them or do anything in the middle east altogether is about to close real soon.

You need a lot of lowly enriched uranium to get enough highly enriched uranium to make a bomb. Iran gave over 9.7 tonnes of the stuff to the west for the deal. Keeping less than 300 kgs. They were in a far better place to make a bomb before the deal than they are now.

Short story, Trump is a fucking idiot and a danger to the world.

[Gormwood]

We had a deal in place, and we bear part of the responsibility for this because of our decision to arbitrarily withdraw.

Mostly because Donnie is an insecure manbaby who is envious of Obama and so wants to erase all of Obama's accomplishments and legacies. He'd erase the 44th Presidency from human memory if he and the Republicans had their way.

[Gormwood]

Short story, Trump is a fucking idiot and a danger to the world.

But he was worth it for deplorables with Joker fantasies that wanted to give Hillary the finger.

[US-SSR]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48661843

Iran has announced it intends to breech the uranium enrichment limit on the 27th June, claiming it is in response to European failure to protect them from the reinstatement of American sanctions. This includes restarting a heavy water plant that could produce weapons grade plutonium.

The UK, France and Germany have warned Iran not to violate the 2015 deal, and that they will reinstate their sanctions if Iran doesn’t change its course.

This shows that Iran was never serious about limiting its nuclear program, and obviously wants to repair the damage done to its economy, then create its nuclear weapons from a position of strength. Allowing Iran to obtain a bomb would turn the Middle East into a nuclear powder keg that would make Indian subcontinent look Antarctic in comparison, and put Europe in range of both nuclear weapons and radioactive fallout.

What it shows is the US never should have breached the international agreement first by reimposing sanctions; that the narrative that doing so was somehow going to bring the Iranian government to heel is shown to be completely bogus; and that the next agreement, assuming the other parties can engineer one, is not going to be more restrictive on Iran. If Teheran does get a nuke it will be entirely the fault of the corrupt, venal, callous, lawless, feckless Trump Administration.

[Thermodolia]

Well, looks like we shouldn't have destroyed the nuclear deal

I bet Jared Kushner and his Israeli friends are gonna come to regret pushing the Orange man to abandon it.

Why would they? Israel has wanted this war for years.

And guess where a bunch of American troops are going in the next few weeks. I swear that John “War is good for my pocket” Bolton is trying to jumpstart a war with Iran.

This plus the tanker incident are going to be used as proof just like the Chemical weapons where used as proof to go after Saddam. Who’s ready for 20 more years of fighting in the Middle East?!

[Thermodolia]

And without the American bully, Europe would be surrounded by a bunch of brutal dictators with chemical weapons, ready to be launched against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Europe.

The iraqi program got repeatedly trashed by the Israelis and the Libyan one was never really much worth a mention. Besides getting some old SCUD missiles isnt a big thing. Chemical Weapons aren't either. As for Europe we got Trident and the Force de Frappe to defend ourself. Speaking of which, its however also Europes fault for giving way too much room for people like Khomeini who was given free house in 1979. That was a mistake, and this attitude of appeasement and pandering towards radical islamists continues to this day.

Trident is a joint US/UK program though

[Dooom35796821595]

The iraqi program got repeatedly trashed by the Israelis and the Libyan one was never really much worth a mention. Besides getting some old SCUD missiles isnt a big thing. Chemical Weapons aren't either. As for Europe we got Trident and the Force de Frappe to defend ourself. Speaking of which, its however also Europes fault for giving way too much room for people like Khomeini who was given free house in 1979. That was a mistake, and this attitude of appeasement and pandering towards radical islamists continues to this day.

Trident is a joint US/UK program though

More of a US weapon system that the UK rents out.

[Loben The 2nd]

We had a deal in place, and we bear part of the responsibility for this because of our decision to arbitrarily withdraw.

A bad deal but hey, so long as it padded a certain former presidents resume to the pantheon of liberalism.