Something like 400 people just died because of a claim about nuclear weapons which is not backed up by evidence. Claims that have been echoed for decades…

Purportedly 400 people just died… Was it because a sovereign country wants to have Nuclear power? Maybe? Maybe not? Was it because Israel already has Nukes? Who knows… But it’s not a simple end of story situation unless lives have no value.

500K-1M Iraqis died because of a proven false claim about nuclear weapons. Not a single perpetrator faced justice.

“The world is a safer place…”

When you hear these words you’re being sold an agenda.

Is there any use for highly enriched uranium other than weapons?

Radiopharmacy / Nuclear pharmacy. While peaceful, it's a delicate science and some kind of inspections are usually enforced. Thankfully, Iran did allow IAEA inspectors and is a signatory of the NPT (non-proliferation treaty). One could wish that was the reality of the nuclear operations of certain other states which are not scrutinized.

Some developments in this area:

https://tvbrics.com/en/news/iran-presents-15-developments-in...

https://wanaen.com/iran-surpasses-70-locally-produced-radiop...

I read that Iran was enriching weapons-grade uranium for peaceful purposes.

It is all very, even exceedingly simple. Iran’s nuclear program had no civilian explanation or justification. There’s nothing to be done with 60% enriched material other than go for nuclear weapons within a very short timeframe.

True - agreed. Now we need to get rid of Israel's nuclear weapons.

Let's get rid of all nuclear weapons. Why are we picking on Israel here? Unlike the US Israel has never used theirs (or admitted they actually have them). Russia has openly threatened the west with nuclear attack.

Because Israel is the only nation in that region that has nuclear weapons, and the main reason why Iran wants to have nuclear weapons.

It's not really the reason Iran wants to have nuclear weapons though. Iran wants to have nuclear weapons to destroy Israel but more generally to be able to act with impunity.

Israel has nothing against Iran. Before the Islamic revolution there were warm relations between the countries and the people. They are pretty distant geographically and until now have never fought a direct war. Iran has been actively attacking Israel via proxies for decades now and openly claims it wants to destroy it. Israel, at least to date, has shown that it can be trusted to use nuclear weapons as a pure deterrent.

I'd rather live in a world without nuclear weapons but I'm a lot more worried about Russia and Pakistan (e.g.).

By the way, we've seen what value security guarantees have to countries willing to give up nuclear deterrence in Ukraine. Not worth anything.

> Iran has been actively attacking Israel via proxies for decades

I think this framing is incorrect. It’s more like “Iran has helped these organizations fight Israel”.

It’s fairly obvious that Hamas and Hezbollah are not proxies - they arose not because of Irani funding but as a reaction to Israeli actions.

Or at least counterbalance it with

"America arms Israel to attack Lebannon and Palestine"

> Iran wants to have nuclear weapons to destroy Israel

That's often spread by Jewish media, but I see no evidance for this. Iran's supreme leader has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons.

> Israel has nothing against Iran

Just like Israel has nothing against Palestinians?

> Israel, at least to date, has shown that it can be trusted to use nuclear weapons as a pure deterrent.

A genocidal state cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Israel and the Palestinians have a history of violence from Israel's first day as a country. Israel and Iran not really. More recently Israel has been attacked by Palestinians on Oct 7th. Iran was involved in training Hamas: https://ecfr.eu/article/iran-hamas-and-islamic-jihad-a-marri...

"The Hamas-led attacks against Israel on 7 October reflected their own independent calculations. Although they could not have happened without the provision of long-term Iranian support, the attacks likely came as an unwelcome surprise for Tehran, which over the last two months has avoided giving Palestinian groups full-throated support. Whether Hamas and PIJ remain tightly aligned with Iran, however, will depend on the outcome of the war in Gaza and wider dynamics in the Middle East’s fluctuating geopolitics."

Israel has really no history of any hostility towards Iran that predates their proxy wars on Israel. There is absolutely no rational reason or excuse for Iran to be attacking Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_conf...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/09/...

> A genocidal state cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Exactly.

Israel has been oppressing Palestinians long before Oct 7th.

Israel was involved in supporting ISIS. That's why ISIS never attacked Israel (except that one time accidentally which they apologized for! How crazy is that?)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is...

Israel also supported rebel groups in Syria https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-chief-acknowledges-long-cl...

> Israel has really no history of any hostility towards Iran that predates their proxy wars on Israel. There is absolutely no rational reason or excuse for Iran to be attacking Israel.

Israel has a history of hostility towards multiple neighbouring states. US has invaded Iraq for Israel. Iran does not want to be next.

> Exactly.

So you agree Israel should not be allowed nuclear weapons

And Israel is the only country actively fighting it’s neighbor.

Neighbors.

Palestine Syria Lebanon Yemen And Iran

Have all been bombed repeatedly by Israel

Israel wasn't really at war with either Lebanon or Yemen or with the Palestinians. It was with Hezbollah and the Houthis and Hamas. All attacked Israel with no provocation before Israel retaliated.

Syria is a different story. Israel did bomb military assets in Syria once the Assad regime fell/fled out of concerns they would fall into the hands of Jihadists. It also took territory to expand the zone it controls in case said Jihadists have intentions of proceeding into Israel. It took advantage of a vacuum in an uncertain security situation. During Assad's reign it did not bomb Syria since the 1973 war (where Syria attacked Israel with no provocation, that was Assad the father fwiw).

Sure, by that token the US wasn’t really at war with Germany or Vietnam, it was at war with the Nazis and the Viet Cong. It’s a meaningless distinction to anyone actually affected by the wars.

Additionally, Israel bombed Damascus during Assad’s reign. Here’s one recent example (bombing an embassy building):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_airstrike_on_the_Ira...

> no provocation

There’s a long history of violence in that region. To say that either side was “unprovoked” is a bit rich.

E.g https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_cla...

How Israel is supposed to guarantee its existence without nukes? Or is this the idea here?

Replace Israel with Iran and your question remains the same.

Iran doesn't want to end up like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya.

Iran seemed like they were doing fine in the existence department, no? I have a lot of disagreement (to put it mildly) with Israel, but I think they'd be fine letting Iran be if they'd stop funding Hezbollah and the Houthis, and quieted down with the "Israel must be destroyed" rhetoric.

(And before the argument changes subject, I think Iran [and others] are justified in being angry with Israel about what they're doing in Gaza.)

Netanyahu has consistently said he wanted a regime change in Iran, alongside Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan. Iran does not want to end up like the other countries.

How is Iran supposed to "guarantee its existence" without nukes? Or any other country?

I mean, other neighboring countries close to Israel have largely made peace with the country, and they have no nukes. Iran stands out in terms of constantly funding proxies to attack it.

>A world where Iran has no nukes is a safer world, end of story.

Safer for who? Would anyone be lobbing missiles into Tehran if Iran had nukes?

Given how Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine were treated after dismantling their nuclear programs, and given how much grace countries like North Korea are given you'd be an idiot to not have nuclear program, especially when the US accuses you of having on.

Remember, Iran agreed to nuclear deproliferation under Obama, and the next guy tore it up. It's only rational to try and develop nukes and I'd argue its safer if Iran had nukes. Kids wouldn't be dying under rubble in Tehran otherwise.

Nuclear deproliferation is complete joke unless the US and Russia are the first to give up their nukes.

Since when has a conflict in the Middle East been the end of the story?

That world is the world we have always lived in, unless you have evidence otherwise?

Why aren't we allowed to extend this scrutiny to Israel?

Not for Iran.

We were heading into that world until Trump fucked the deal.

https://www.statista.com/chart/23528/irans-stockpile-of--low...

I guess this is a half truth- that people were still not happy with Iran- who they were still funding and also continuing to develop non-nuclear ballistic missiles?

Iran was following their obligations. Trump pulled out unilaterally.

But that makes it sound as if Iran was just peacefully chilling out. Which is technically true, but it doesn't actually reflect reality.

Breaking promises with them means we give up the ability to work with them diplomatically on other goals. "They haven't done everything we'd like them to do" isn't a valid response to someone fulfilling the terms of an agreement you've made with them.

Trump chose to break promises. Now we are seeing the outcome of the resulting breakdown of diplomatic relations.

This is the kind of politics that's hard to say which position is the more optimistic or jaded. Or both at once.

At some point we have to try to make things better, and believe that better (even just a smidge at a time, and possibly with great effort) is possible. Or else we might as well just build the suicide booths from Futurama.

It feels deeply cynical and jaded to me to say, well, just let Iran fund armies and encourage ethnic cleansing, as long as they don't do this one specific thing that is more important to Americans. As long as the horrors you create only affect people in the middle east, we can look the other way.

I'd say the cynical position is the one that says "we can't improve everything all at once, so let's not seek incremental improvements."

In the Obama deal Iran was allowed to back out if the US broke its terms of the agreement (which happened because of Trump pulling out), so they are acting 100% in accordance still with the original Obama deal. Do you have evidence otherwise?

The US withdrew from the deal after secret documents stolen from Tehran revealed a covert nuclear program and two undeclared nuclear sites.

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

Heard that about the invasion of Iraq. It was bullshit then it’s bullshit now.

Surely this is just as true for the US and Israel, both of which are less stable countries.

If only there were ways to accomplish this without violence! That would be a really interesting tactic to try some day!