There's no such a thing as "rights" in international affairs. International relationships are not managed by what's right or wrong, but according to countries' interests and needs.

Now, under this paradigm, we as the free world have to ask ourselves - is it of our interest that Iran will gain access to nuclear weapons? The answer is absolutely no.

Would you please elaborate why? It's not very clear to me.

I assume you are asking why Iran shouldn't have nuc. weapons.

A detailed answered would require several pages, but in short - Iran and the west have opposing views and conflicting interests. The western interests would be put in compromise if Iran gains such a leverage.

As a theocratic regime, Iran has been actively exporting it's shiite fundamentalist ideology by force (from Yemen to Lebanon and even some non-muslim countries in South America). It would be naive to think that Iran will stop there.

For example, just imagine what would happen if a nuclear Iran invades Saudi Arabia and take over its oil fields.

Or if a nuclear Iran decided to block the Suez canal, effectively cutting off all of Europe from China, India and Japan.

They don't have to use nuclear weapons to inflict damage upon the west.

Iran is a theocracy that has stated multiple times a desire to "Wipe X off the face of the earth", where X is another country / race / religion.

Only one of the countries out of Israel and Iran have nukes, a superpower as benefactor, and lobby continuously for an invasion by that benefactor, an invasion that would kill hundreds of thousands. Not to mention the sanctions that are reshaping an entire society.

Is Israel that much different? It seems like if you're committed to empowering all BIPOC you would not restrict their access to the weaponry needed to defend their homelands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

Is this some kind of a bad joke? Because some countries have BIPOC if they want nukes to not hinder their empowerment nobody should intervene. If all the countries in MENA have nukes, this would be terrible for everybody, it would exponentially rise the risk of nuclear warheads being used.

Is there an impartial standard that we could use in determining which countries we should allow to have nukes?

Why should the US allow Israel to have nukes when we spend so much energy preventing Iran from doing the same?

Israel is not governed by religious law, and has full rights for women, minorities, and LGBTQ. Its basis for most policy is a blend of social democracy and neoliberalism. Its military is purely defensive. I cannot say any of those things about Iran in good faith.

Also, the what-about-ism is not a great defense of anything geopolitical btw.

Not governed by religious law? 9000 Israelis get married in neighbouring countries each year because their relationship wouldn't satisfy the Orthodox rabbis who run the show. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Israel

Are ethnic minorities extended the "right of return" in Israel? Last I checked this was not the case.

What do you mean? Can a Senegalese become a citizen of the USA (or of almost any country on Earth) without a lengthy naturalization? If not, is the USA discriminatory.

Of course the right of return is just for Jews. Every country gets to set its own rules for citizenship. But Israeli citizens enjoy a reasonable democracy, with advanced civil rights, and respect human rights of others, too. Of course not at 100% but way better then all of their neighbors

The United States doesn't grant you privileges for being a Christian or being white. The United States doesn't label itself as a "white country."

Israel grants privileges for being Jewish and denies citizenship if you are from Palestine.

Think of judaism as ethnicity. You can be an atheist jew and be granted Israeli citizenship. Israel is the historic homeland of the jewish culture/people.

I'd liken it to something like Country X giving special immigration privileges if you have ancestry from country X.

They don't deny citizenship if you're palestinian, granted it's as difficult if you were trying to get citizenship coming from any other country

I have a solid conception of judaism, I've lived in places with thriving jewish communities my entire life, and am sephardic-descended myself.

> it's as difficult if you were trying to get citizenship coming from any other country

Nope, it's more so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_and_Entry_into_Isr...

In general, I am opposed to ethnostates and granting nationality based on what bloodline you come from. I think it is ironic that there is a right of "return" for Jewish people, but no such right of return for people who were displaced during the Nakba.

(For context, I'm a Jewish Israeli)

I'll be honest - I'm also opposed to "ethnostates" in general, and would much prefer the world moved beyond looking at each other based on ethnicity.

But given the fact that Israel was kind of explicitly created because the world hasn't moved past looking at ethnicity, I'm not sure what my solution is. I'm an Israeli Jew - I know that if Israel wouldn't exist, my life would be far more dangerous. And that's not a hypothetical - a huge chunk of my family were murdered for no other reason than being Jewish. The only guarantee I have that this won't happen again is that there is a strong Jewish state.

Do I like that the world is like this? No! Not at all. But that's the way the world is. And considering that most other groups do have effectively their own countries, I don't see a reason that Jews shouldn't also have their own country.

(This is all talking about the concept of an "ethnostate" in specific, not getting into the question of whether Israel being founded in the location it is was wrong in the first place - the arguments above would work just as well if Israel had been founded anywhere else.)

Yes, if they convert to Judaism. Seems reasonable, Judaism doesn't ban any ethnic minorities.

Sorry, what was this about "not being governed by religious law"?

> full rights for women, minorities, and LGBTQ

So not full rights for religious minorities. Moreover, conversion is quite difficult and the process is made much easier if you have a parent who is Jewish (which generally forms an ethnic group). Only recently were non-Orthodox conversions recognized for this purpose: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/01/world/middleeast/israel-j...

Also, if you are from Palestine or Iran, you are excluded from citizenship via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_and_Entry_into_Isr...

ie. specifically on the basis of your ethnicity &/or national origin.

I find it hard to take seriously claims of equal & full rights for minorities when those rights require converting to a different religion or being of a different ethnicity in order to apply to you.

It's important for people to understand that Judaism is a minority religion that has been historically persecuted. There is nothing wrong with working to preserve the tradition and culture, and if it ends in a small amount of ethnic homogeneity then it has to be accepted as necessary, especially since "Jewish" is both a religion and an ethnicity, so in the current historical context failing to preserve Judaism means failing to preserve Jews.

Empowering BIPOC isn't about expecting all the same things. It's about giving BIPOC the resources they need for their ethnic and cultural self-determination.

How does denying citizenship to minorities help preserve Jewish culture? I'm glad you've backed away from the "equal rights for all rhetoric" though.

It's too bad Afrikaners didn't try harder to "preserve the traditional and culture" of minority rule in South Africa as well.

Historical persecution doesn't justify enthnostates in my mind, I didn't realize this was a controversial opinion.

e: Since you've now edited your comment to include the statement about "BIPOC", Jewishness is orthogonal to "BIPOC" and most Jewish people are white.

I say that as someone of Sephardic descent.

> There is nothing wrong with working to preserve the tradition and culture, and if it ends in a small amount of ethnic homogeneity then it has to be accepted as necessary

"a small amount of ethnic homogeneity" seems like a deliberate minimization.

Israel is an apartheid state that has been persecuting based on ethnicity and religion for decades.

That's actually not as clear as you might think.

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/10/15/...

What do you think would happen if the US and all of Europe completely pulled out of the Middle East? Would Israel stay the size it is now? If not, can you really say it's "purely defensive"?

I am not sure what you are implying. Can you elaborate? Are you saying Israel would go attack its neighbors and seize land? From Egypt? Jordan? Lebanon? If so, that's an absurd proposition with absolutely no geopolitical data points to back it.

I don't think it's too absurd to imply that a country would expand into weaker neighboring countries if it could. One example where the US has intervened is Egypt -- without the US the Sinai Peninsula would surely be part of Israel right now. So yes I'd say it would seize land from Egypt, as it already has.

If the US and Europe pulled out of the Middle East it would be too chaotic to predict anything. It depends on the presence of other superpowers (Russia, China) and the pecking order that would be established between the regional powers (Turkey, Israel, Iran, Egypt + the Sunni world).

Also, "pulling out" is too simplistic. There are not only troops on the ground, but also military bases, joint exercises, weapon sales, commercial ties, industrial ties, scientific collaborations, cultural influences, and so on and so forth. Short of disappearing from the globe the US cannot just 'pull out'

This type of attack isn't likely to cause a 'meltdown', since the uranium is usually in a very hot vaporous form while being centrifuged. If the containers rupture, it will spread out and condensate in a thin layer that's not very likely to reach criticality. Nuclear reprocessing absolutely has dangers, but meltdowns aren't really the issue.

> But sadly the US has not been taking a leadership role recently.

I'd wager the US will dismantle it's nuclear weapons the day other nations stop seeking to produce nuclear weapons. ie, this will never happen.

The US, China, Russia, India, UK, etc having nuclear weapons is a lot less of a threat to global security than a nation-state such as Iran, which vows to destroy it's surrounding nations every chance it gets.

The history of humans has been rife with armed conflict. It's an anomaly that the last 70 years have not seen massive global armed conflict, particularly in the "digital age". Perhaps nations that have nuclear weapons, but don't desire to use them are the reason? Perhaps not... but what is certain is Iran has stated they intend to use nuclear weapons, and that's not ok by anyone.

Iran is a large nation of millions of people with a relatively developed government (even if we don't like the way it is currently structured).

I doubt they would initiate a nuclear strike, knowing it means their annihilation.

Also, most modern statements by Iran focus on the "Zionist regime", not the literal killing of the residents of Israel. You can find similar rhetoric in the United States about the CCP.

> what is certain is Iran has stated they intend to use nuclear weapons

Is that certain? When have they said that?

>I doubt they would initiate a nuclear strike, knowing it means their annihilation.

If someone with a gun holstered at their waist asked you to give you your money, would you refuse?

If Iran will get access to nuclear weapons, it's status in international politics will change drastically, all leverages the west has on Iran (like the ability to impose sanctions upon human right violations and counter their violent export of the shiite ideology) will more or less disappear

Is that why we don't have the ability to impose sanctions on North Korea?

Firstly, the NK situation is terrible. South Koreans are basically living with a sword hanging above their neck 24/7.

I don't think that the middle east, being an unstable region to begin with, would benefit from yet such a major destabilizing factor.

Iran has an ability to inflict much more damage upon the west than NK and Pakistan combined. It is an oil rich country, neighbor to the one of the biggest oil exporters in the world and is located in the center one of the busiest naval traffic routes.

You cannot find similar rhetoric from the US vowing to destroy China. In fact, you'd find the exact opposite.

Your other points rely on a rational actor... rational actors don't take freight ships hostage nor kidnap tourists.

> rational actors don't take freight ships hostage not kidnap tourists.

Israel has kidnapped tourists before. Vanunu is still trapped in Israel.

Where has Iran said that they intend to use nuclear weapons?

> Israel has kidnapped tourists before. Vanunu is still trapped in Israel.

Mordechai Vanunu? His situation is quite a bit different than kidnapping a tourist that literally has done nothing to Iran except show up - or a freight ship traversing international waters. Vanunu leaked a ton of nuclear secrets about Israel and fled - ie, he was no tourist and your point makes no sense.

Whataboutism isn't a good reason to excuse Iran's extremely poor international behavior, nor condone their relentless threats against Israel and other nations (including the US). Nor does whataboutism excuse Iran's direct funding of terrorist groups that have killed Americans and other nationals alike.

With all these discussions, it's important to note the regime of Iran is not the people of Iran. The people are likely amazing and full of culture and history - the regime is oppressive and aggressive, which is not tolerated in modern times.

He was a tourist in Italy when he was abducted.

And Italy abducted him? I do not follow your point...

Still, keeping the guy who served his full sentence of nearly 20 years in the country (and with various additional restrictions) for anothe 15 years is not a nice thing to do. They should have shot him dead in Rome and be done with it, like in 2.5k other cases.

Nothing to do with the discussion here, just a random thought on the Vanunu matter.

It's hard to differentiate an actual threat though. Trump is an example here who also stated he intended to use nuclear weapons, often times in stupidly ignorant ways.

I think there are parallels with Iran, in that a lot of BS & insane rhetorical bluster we hear(d) feed the base so they can maintain power. They need to keep the religious base flustered and angry at an enemy to maintain their own power.

Trump said he'd use nuclear weapons? I must have missed this, source?

While Trump's rhetoric about "fire and fury" and retaliation against other countries was insane for a US President, he never explicitly said anything about nuclear and it's a grasp for others to imply he meant that.

Yeah I wouldn't read to much into his addled 'brain' lol but he also asked his advisors if he could Nuke hurricanes and there are lots of reports that he is fixated on them, asking 'why can't i use them' like a 8 year old wanting to use dangerous adult power tools but WHYYYY. Or responding why do we have them if we don't use them.

Sorry that's probably too much editorializing for HN but it's extremely farcical on its face.

https://time.com/4437089/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-nukes/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40879868