And then you just end up with an Iran with more powerful conventional weapons, so not exactly a major win either.

This is a testable hypotheses. We can look at arms buildup in history. I predict that you are wrong. Conventional arms buildup tends to correlate with war. The more war there is, the more countries built up their arsenals.

Further, I predict that there is a negative correlation with international treaties, and bilateral agreements and arms buildup. That is, the more nations cooperate, the more they negotiate and agree on stuff, the fewer arms they pursue and keep.

I don‘t feel like doing the research to gather evidence for my hypothesis, but mine at least doesn’t fail the sniff test. Feel free to prove me wrong with data.

History is full of nations and leaders that decided to go on conquest because of ego and hunger for power - that's your data.

You know what correlates the most with peace and lack of arms races? Having a single superpower who everyone is afraid of.

Deterrence is the reason why bad actors have kept relatively quiet, not diplomacy.

That is not my hypothesis. My hypothesis is about weapons buildup in relation to a) war, and b) treaties and agreements. And it is about trends and likelihoods, not absolutes. To restate my hypothesis. More of (a) = more weapons. More of (b) = fewer weapons.

Sure we can look at Israel, a nation which has a part of tons of international treaties and agreements (albeit fewer then most other nations) and yet is one of the most antagonistic militarized nations in history. So we know there are exception. North Korea might be an example of a country that passes the sniff test of my second hypothesis. Outside of the most international treaties and agreements and also extremely militarized.

But on the other hand, according to my first hypothesis, Israel does pass as an example that contributes to the passing of the sniff test. Israel is probably the country that has seen the most wars and conflicts since World War 2 (maybe USA and Russia/Soviet Union have seen more; I don‘t know), and in accordance to my hypothesis, it is also one of the most militarized nation in the world currently (including one of very few nuclear armed nations).

We know that experts are fairly bad at predictions.

Plus we have the latest report from the UN that Iran has been breaching their nuclear agreements.

Iran most likely won't be able to redevelop a nuclear program if the current one is destroyed (and Israel could easily destroy it again when/if they restart)

Iran’s behavior is exactly in line with my hypothesis. They a) were involved in regional conflicts against Israel (including having bombs dropped on them from Israel), and b) had their treaties broken by the USA.

Dropping the treaties and invading Iran does seem to correlate with weapons buildup.

But the weapons have already been built, so at this point its either you act first or just hope.

And hope isn't much of a strategy.

Obviously there is a huge risk here that if Israel fails then Iran will without a doubt push for a bomb.

You seem pretty sure about your beliefs about this, and I doubt there is anything I can say which will convince you otherwise. But when you put forth a testable hypotheses, and experts in the field seem to disagree with your conviction about the matter, perhaps it is time time maybe consider that maybe you are wrong and the experts are right.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/13/iran-to-double-down...

Because it seems fairly obvious to me that if the current nuclear program is taken out the chances that they'll be able to redevelop it in the near to medium term future are extremely low.

How exactly will they be able to do so? They won't be able to protect the sites from further attacks, not to mention losing a significant chunk of the expertise in form of personal along with the materials required.

It's not some Lego set, rebuilding such a project is insanely complex and time consuming, chances of success are very low (assuming Russia, North Korea, etc, don't decide to just hand some over)

Plus, even if they did develop a new program by the time it's done anti missile tech will most likely reach a new phase.

Iran’s “treaty” was they get to build a giant stockpile of conventional weapons in exchange for not building a nuclear weapon… but they get to continue enriching uranium at levels that would make it very easy to quickly ramp up to nukes if they choose. And the treaty expires in 10 years (guess how long ago the treaty was signed).

Not only did they immediately flout the rules and enrich uranium past the levels they were allowed to, the also in defiance of the treaty built secret nuclear reactors that weren’t monitored, and pursued building and stockpiling all the parts necessary to build a nuclear warhead.

Throughout this entire conversation you’ve made many claims that aren’t true at all. You’ve shown extreme bigotry against Jews and Israel.

Iran’s military spending has not significantly increased since 2015. Treaties also have a tendency to be extended or replaced by something similar. Your hypotheses that Iran’s buildup of conventional weapons would increase as a result of the nuclear agreement is wrong.

Most experts agree that the Iran nuclear deal was a success until USA withdrew in 2018.

Iran’s military spending hasn’t decreased significantly since 2015. Which you would expect if your “hypothesis” had any legs. It has in fact increased. Thus again disproving your spurious claims.

Please point to these supposed experts, everything I saw from that time was that only those naive enough to believe a pack of lies claimed the nuclear deal would work, while everyone else was pointing out all the ways Iran was totally subverting it.

2015: 10.38 Billion USD (inflation adjusted)

2023: 10.28 Billion USD (inflation adjusted)

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.CD?location...

Expert opinion:

* https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/04/iran-nuclear-...

* https://nationalinterest.org/blog/energy-world/us-iran-nucle...

Note that neither tout the success of 2015 directly (why would they, it failed after USA withdrew) but rather are proposing a new deal would build upon stuff that worked in 2015:

> In 2015, the JCPOA’s durability stemmed in part from expert-level dialogue between scientists, including US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Ali Akbar Salehi, then-head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. Reestablishing that kind of technical cooperation is essential to crafting a framework that can both verify compliance and contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Your own data shows expenditures rose for 2 years after the signing of the treaty… and once the US pulled out they dropped precipitously. That’s ignoring the context of what was happening at the time namely, Iran directly supporting the genocidal Syrian regime.

Those “experts” don’t at all support your claims that the 2015 deal was or could be successful. We’re not currently discussing the deal that might be made, as details are changing too rapidly for anything they said last week to be relevant anymore (e.g. many of the scientists who were pursuing a second jewish genocide are now dead). We’re discussing whether the 2015 deal was viable immediately after it was signed… based on your own data and idea (treaty = declining military spending) it appears it wasn’t.

Again. My hypothesis is about trends and probability, not absolutes. One datapoint is not enough to prove or disprove anything.

I purposefully tried to find the most up to date opinions on the matter while still before Israels attacks. But here is what experts were saying back in March 2018

> Iran is Implementing Nuclear-related JCPOA Commitments, Director General Amano Tells IAEA Board

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iran-is-implementing-nu...

> Collapse of Iran nuclear deal would be ‘great loss,’ says UN atomic agency chief

https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/03/1004112

Lol k. So you opinion is that maybe if the rest of the world lets Iran build up a huge stockpile of weapons and enrich uranium 50% of the way to a nuke, they’ll not be as evil?

I guess that’s an opinion someone could have…

Regarding your sources, yes those are the naive experts I was talking about. The same ones who allowed Iran to build a secret facility right under their nose, the same one that finally admitted years too late that actually Iran is far out of compliance. They’re about as effective as UNIFIL.

Iran just withdrew from the NPT. So once again, your high minded ideas don’t have any basis in reality. This comes on the heels of the IAEA finally deciding to acknowledge the reality that Iran has not been in compliance for quite a while.

Meanwhile you felt your personal opinion should be what decides the fate of half the world’s Jews.

[delayed]

I haven’t personally attacked anyone. I pointed out some egregious behavior you engaged in and suggested that you refrain from doing that in the future. But it seems even in this comment you again engaged in that same bigoted behavior. It’s very disappointing. I’m really sorry that it’s so difficult for you to discuss a topic without showing extreme prejudice and in some cases outright hostility. Again this is not a personal attack, but rather me calling out inappropriate and offensive language.

I will engage one last time but I caution you to please reconsider your approach. If you continue to make such racist comments I will simply leave the conversation as I don’t like interacting with hateful people.

The article you shared is from a publication that ain’t known for fair and balanced coverage, but even there they admit that Iran pursuing nuclear power has pushed SA to do the same. Once again showing that it’s not about how many countries maintain nuclear capability but rather how stable their governments are. Belaying the fact that treaties are basically meaningless unless everyone else believes you will keep to them. And guess what, the majority of humanity believes Iran will not keep its word on anything. Even today they were shouting “Death To America, Death to Israel”. A people screaming for blood should be believed not coddled, especially when they openly act out those calls for mass murder. So far they’ve attacked multiple large apartment buildings and a school for mentally impaired children none of which were anywhere near any military targets.

Nothing he said was bigoted or racist, what are you talking about?

>Even today they were shouting “Death To America, Death to Israel”.

What about the Israelis shouting death to Arabs?

> So far they’ve attacked multiple large apartment buildings and a school for mentally impaired children none of which were anywhere near any military targets

Israel has targeted hospitals and apartments also. Tit for tat. Also Iran has hit military targets which were placed among civilians (HaKirya). Why is Israel using human shields? Reprehensible.

For the record, this is what the experts are saying now:

> For #Israel to attack #Iran including its nuclear facilities (prohibited by international law) and for #Trump to ask Iran for “total surrender” and forgo a treaty right (uranium enrichment) in a clear act of national humiliation, on suspicion that it is developing nuclear weapons (possessed by both #Israel and #US), suspicion that does not constitute an “imminent threat” as confirmed by all western intelligence agencies and was dealt with through negotiations in #JCPOA agreement of 2015 which the US withdrew from in 2018

> To rely on force and not negotiations is a sure way to destroy the #NPT and the nuclear non proliferation regime (imperfect as it is) and sends a clear message to many countries that their “ultimate security” is to develop nuclear weapons !!!

https://x.com/ElBaradei/status/1935041599605539211

ElBaradei won the Nobel Price in 2005 for his work on nuclear non-proliferation. I‘m pretty sure he knows more about this than you or I.

Ah yes a Jew hater, won a noble peace prize. The “most prestigious” of noble prizes. Only handed out to those who really accomplish great things.

You do your argument no favors linked to a twitter account that openly spreads blood libels and invents lies.

Your hypothesis definitely fails the sniff test. China, Iran, Russia, SA, Pakistan, India… the list goes on. All have many bilateral agreements and yet were or are building up their arms.

Iran choose to insert itself where it didn’t belong and had no reason to be. If Iran (like 1930s Germany) had just focused on torturing its own people instead, none of this would’ve happened and Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Israel and yes even palestine (without Iran’s interference would already be a state) would all be much nicer places right now. Instead it introduced regional instability with its ambitions of annihilating and subjugating Jews, to which you are lending your full throated support.

Funny you should omit USA from this list, which is the worst offender (and also a very obvious example against my case).

But my hypothesis is time relative, as countries participate in more treaties and agreements, the less they arm them selves. Note that USA has been a significantly worse participate in agreements and treaties as your average western nation, and is also the country which is increasing their arms spending at the greatest rate. Note Europe is also increasing their arms spending, which is why I provided the second hypotheses, that an increased war correlates with increased arms buildup. Europe has been seeing more wars lately, and they are in turn increasing their arms buildup.

Finally, why is South Africa on that list? South Africa has consistently been reducing their arms spending by around 5-10% every year, for the last 5 years at least. And historically (during apartheid) it was one of the most militarized countries on earth. It was also famously not part of hardly any agreements or treaties (as it was sanctioned for their apartheid polices). After apartheid ended South Africa started participating in almost all the treaties and agreements which a modern democracy is expected to (going even further than most western countries). And even famously dismantled their nuclear weapons program. South Africa should be a most prominent example in favor of my hypothesis.

Sure add US to the list, makes your case even worse. The US is party to many more trade and arms treaties than any other country on earth and has the largest stockpile of weapons.

SA is Saudi Arabia.

Regardless I've soundly disproven your theory that treaties lower weapon stockpiles, No one disagrees that war will cause people to increase the arms spending, that’s a given. But it’s also pretty clear that treaties do not necessarily lead to less arms spending. Especially when one of the parties to the treaty is a theocratic dictatorship who has called for the total annihilation and destruction of all western society. Even while Iran was technically agreeing to follow the treaty it was still funding hezb, hamas and propping up Syria, none of those things speak to a country that is interested in peaceful coexistence with it’s regional neighbors. Additionally, SA (Saudi Arabia) expressed strong interest in developing a nuclear program simply because of Iran’s. So allowing Iran to have any sort of nuclear program directly contributes to more nuclear proliferation.

Saudi Arabia is hardly a member of many international agreements relative to most countries.

But you haven’t disproven anything, my hypothesis is about trends over time and probabilities, not absolute. What you have done is pointed to a few possible outliers. The existence of outliers does not disprove a trend. The plural of anecdote is not data.

To disprove my hypotheses you’d need to gather the data and show me there is no such correlation.

I know the burden of proof is on me, and you have no obligation believe me without the data to show it, which is why I only claimed that the hypotheses passes the sniff test. And from what I have been reading is that experts on the matter tend to agree with me, that Iran is actually more likely to pursue the bomb now that it has been attacked, and it was less likely when the Iran nuclear deal was in effect.

We’re not talking about relative to other countries. We’re talking in absolute terms of the country in question, Iran also isn’t party to many treaties, so really SA is a perfect example.

Seeing as you refuse to back up any of your claims with data, we’re not talking real science here but baseless accusations supported by biased bigotry vs anecdotal evidence, I don’t feel the need to disprove anything to a scientific degree, rather, the opposite is true, to prove the hypothesis you need to gather the data and show that it supports you. Until then your opinion is nothing more than that.

It’s truly the height of narcissism to make a completely unsupported claim with only your own feelings as the basis for your evidence and hold the fate of one of worlds old people/religions to it.

The claim I‘m trying to refute is this:

mupuff1234 2 days ago

> And then you just end up with an Iran with more powerful conventional weapons, so not exactly a major win either.

This is a testable hypothesis. I have shown the specific claim that Iran does in fact not end up with more powerful weapons as a result of a nuclear deal. But what is more interesting is if that pattern is more general, and my prediction is that it is. And furthermore, my additional prediction is that Iran will now have more weapons as a result of it being dragged into a war with Israel. Countries at war tend to own more weapons.

I was also very clear from the beginning that I was not going to look for that data my self, and my only goal was to show that my hypotheses would pass the sniff test. I‘m not an expert in international relations. Surely any data that I would gather would be flawed, and any analysis I did would be biased.

Feel free to prove me wrong with actual data, or cite an expert which already has.

> I have shown the specific claim that Iran does in fact not end up with more powerful weapons as a result of a nuclear deal.

No you haven’t at all.

The problem with your opinion is it’s false on its face with regards to Iran: part of the treaty is that Iran is allowed to build more powerful conventional weapons… and guess what: that’s exactly what they did, in addition to also pursuing nuclear arms. They just only had to hide the nuke development, while the more powerful conventional weapons they were able to develop out in the open. 15 years ago they didn’t have weapons capable of reaching France… now they do. All your other equivocation and high minded ideas about what a rogue colonial, genocidal theocracy might do if you offer enough appeasement are moot. Reality shows that’s not what happened.

Not to mention the other rogue destabilizing things Iran did in the ensuing years, such as supporting Syria in the genocidial war against their own people as well as supporting the Houthis in terrorizing Yemen into a civil war and using that base to also terrorize SA. The treaty completely failed long before trump pulled out. Any claim to the opposite is ignoring all of reality.

I’d also note: I’ve gone back through your comment history… it’s not pretty. You’re willing to give anyone who wants to kill zionists (aka semites aka Jews) as wide a latitude as possible and you make up justification after justification for why it’s ok and really they don’t intend that and really they mean something else, while specifically for one small seaside nation you think has no right to exist, and no matter what they do it’s not ok, and there’s no possible justification for literally anything they do. You also have a very problematic and honestly bigoted view of Jews, where you try to take control of their religion and dictate their core beliefs. It’s really a shame because I never thought of the Icelandic people as so prejudiced.

Hopefully this sort of behavior isn’t tolerated much longer here.

honestly, I wouldn't engage with runarburg anymore, looking at his comments history, he's got some kinda unhealthy obsession with jews and israel. nearly all his submissions are anti-jewish iranian propoganda, he spends a lot of time spreading totally false nonsense about jews, you're not really gonna get anywhere with him.

It failed from day one. Iran ignored it and continued over enriching uranium. They built secret underground nuclear R&D centers and continued development of nuclear warheads. Israel has nothing to do with Iran's attempt at a nuclear holocaust, why are you even mentioning them?