Do you have a source for your second claim?

source? What are you asking for? Can I prove God exists? No. Similarly, I cannot prove such a claim.

There have been seemingly plenty of news, I've spoken with Iranians, etc. None of this would be enough to prove anything to someone who can't see the writing on the wall.

Nonetheless, I do respect the possibility that I might be wrong, that's why I had written seemingly. But it's so likely at this point, based on what I've seen, observed, understand, that my comment seems good and fair.

You can tell it's an issue that warrants more than one sentence to come to a conclusion, because there is an entire wikipedia article dedicated to every country's viewpoint on the matter, meaning this is mostly a matter of opinion and cannot be used to justify the murder of a nuclear scientist. (Which I realise you did not justify)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_on_the_nuclear_program_of_Iran

Just because there's debate and different opinions, doesn't mean the truth is inconclusive.

Politicians have the same problem as you - where is the proof that Iran can't be trusted? There is no proof, there can't be proof. This leads to endless debate with many different opinions.

Just because there's a disagreement involving many sides, doesn't mean that none of the sides are correct. Sometimes, just one of those sides are correct. It is good then when that side pursues the truth, even against all doubt.

I'd say this is pretty strong reason:

https://www.politico.eu/article/terror-trial-in-antwerp-will...

TLDR: the Iranian government attempted to commit a terror attack with a "playstation" (a 20kg explosive designed to set off other explosives). They were going to set it off in the middle of this crowd:

The EU is not pleased, because, well how many terror attacks have happened on French soil with dozens of victims in the last 10 years now? 5? Of course, the EU is mostly concerned about the reaction of France (such as unlawfully suspending the Shengen accords for 5 years and counting, and that's just their most "in your face" violating of EU policy, it's very far from the only one), but until this sort of stuff stops ...

I agree with that. But to continue above analogy,

The U.S. assassinated an Iranian major general in January claiming it was necessary to stop an imminent attack.

Israel has similar claims against Iran. That's why they are also assassinating Iranian scientists that are linked to their nuclear program.

Iran has similar claims against MEK (Mujahedin-e-Khalq) organization in Paris. MEK was listed as a terrorist organization by the UN, EU, and the U.S. until a few years. Hence the failed attempt from Iran that you linked here.

I think assassination of a scientist like that isn't justifiable, for the same reasons that Iran's attempt to target MEK organization isn't justifiable.

The attack on Qasem Soleimani was a military strike against a military target, WHILE this person was orchestrating military strikes against US soldiers. You start shooting at soldiers, they may shoot back, and the bullets coming back may kill you. That he used missiles instead of bullets makes this long-distance, but doesn't change the nature of what happened. This is not what people refer to when they say "assassination".

There are very bad actions by the US military. This is not one of them.

> Iran has similar claims against MEK (Mujahedin-e-Khalq) organization in Paris ...

That they are developing nuclear weapons to use against Iranian civilians? Because that's the claim of the US and Israel, a claim that's essentially validated by the Iranian regime. The mission of this person was to develop and maintain nuclear strike capability ... Netanyahu nor Trump see themselves or their power threatened by an Iranian Nuclear bomb. They see large amounts of civilians threatened by a nuclear weapons, weapons essentially in the hands of racists.

So no, I don't think anything about these claims is similar.

And that is supposed to give the regime in Iran the authority to carry out terrorist actions, in a crowd of civilians, on foreign soil? Foreign soil where other terrorists have randomly killed hundreds of civilians, again for racist reasons? Good luck with that argument ...

All attacks against these weapon development engineers and managers were pinpoint strikes.

So no, I don't think the opponents here are very comparable, neither in reasoning nor in methods.

Would you really trust a dictatorship with nuclear power?

What about Russia?

Or alternatively, what makes democratic nations the better shepards of nuclear weapons? It's not like they're asking their voters before they'd start a nuke.

I think the cold war showed us how easy it is to succumb to fear and how close we can get to nuclear annihilation.

Russia is more trustworthy than Iran. Nonetheless, nobody wants Russia to have nuclear weapons, but nobody can do anything about it. They've already have them for a long time.

I don't trust anyone with nuclear weapons. It would be lovely if nobody had them. That's realistically not possible right now. As long as countries continue to amass them, there's a need for "more good" countries to keep them. These are almost always democracies.

Democracy is generally speaking just safer and better than dictatorship. I'm just going to stop there, and not get into a debate right now of democracy vs dictatorship.

Would you rather have the good man with the power, or the bad man? That's the ultimate question simplified. You want the good man with the power, then it's a question of who is good, which would lead to huge endless debate right now.

If nobody had nuclear weapons the second world war would have lasted longer and the invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost far more lives (on all sides) than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did. The cold war would probably have gone hot, Europe would have been a battlefield and might have ended up under Soviet rule. As to how the conflict between China and the Soviet Union would have gone I can only speculate, that there would have been one is rather likely.

Nuclear weapons have kept the large powers from direct confrontation since the 50's, their existence has saved more lives than their use has cost. As long as they are not acquired by (in our eyes) irrational or suicidal actors they can be used for this purpose. As to whether a nuclear armed Iran would use them as a deterrent or otherwise - which includes providing nuclear weapons to third parties for use against common enemies - I can only guess. My guess is that a weakened theocracy - which is what Iran is - is an irrational actor and with that not to be trusted to "do the right thing".

> If nobody had nuclear weapons the second world war would have lasted longer and the invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost far more lives

Yes, that's what we were told. But, was it really necessary to bomb Japanese cities to show them force?

Nagasaki was not necessary, Hiroshima ended the war. The war would have ended without it as well but the number of lives lost during an invasion would have been far greater than those lost during the bombings.

No! and that's why we had nuclear deal with Iran to monitor their nuclear program. No country has the same amount of international monitoring on their nuclear program that Iran has by IAEA. They signed more nuclear treaties than many other countries with nuclear power.

Putting sanctions and and assassinating their generals and scientist will only give them more reason to distance themselves from west.

You can't use force and unlawful actions and expect your opponent to do nothing or trust you after that. We need sensible solutions.

President Hassan Rouhani was elected democratically.

Iranians were and are afraid to vote.

Not too long ago, in Iran, there were scores of mass protests against their own government, who were then oppressed, subdued, and killed for protesting.

Lots and lots of censorship including in the media, internet, and free speech.

Sounds like a dictatorship to me.