> The position you're taking only really works if you start from "Iran will always work towards having a nuclear bomb, no matter what."

Understanding that Iran is religiously opposed to the creation of nuclear weapons with only the caveat that the fatwa declaring the development, acquisition, and use of nuclear weapons against Islamic law may be rescinded in the event of an existential threat to the republic, it naturally follows that people hold that belief because they intend to present an existential threat to Iran.

There's no evidence the fatwa even exists (aside from statements by self-interested parties), much less any details of its contents and any exception it may have. At any point they could point to an exception in subsection 4) c) and do whatever they want. Because the fatwa isn't published, they can add whatever exception they want later. If it really exists and is really meaningful, they would have publicized it in advance and so been bound by it.

I believe the right to "do whatever they want" is one generally valued by sovereign entities. The ability to "do whatever they want" is probably not really a good reason to bomb them. It does sound like a good reason to not capriciously discard the JCPOA, which is an agreement they adhered to restricting their enrichment of uranium that was discarded to no positive end by Donald Trump, the man who is illegally starting another US war of choice as we speak.

Would we have bombed them if they'd secretly been violating the JCPOA and developed nuclear weapons in 2017? It's worked for literally everyone else who's tried it and it is hard to empathize with a perspective in which the United States has true moral authority over a country that we destabilized and have continuously demonized.

>I believe the right to "do whatever they want" is one generally valued by sovereign entities.

Most theocracies do not declare themselves sovereign over God. If it's truly a religious duty than it exists independently of anything in our world.

>The ability to "do whatever they want" is probably not really a good reason to bomb them.

I meant that the fatwa proves nothing until it is publicly published. Bombing was due to the nuclear program and no other reason.

>capriciously discard the JCPOA, which is an agreement they adhered to restricting their enrichment of uranium

The agreement had sunsets, it would have very soon expired. It's better to actually solve problems and not leave them to successors.

>illegally starting another US war of choice

Every modern President violated the War Powers act. It's unworkable.

>Would we have bombed them if they'd secretly been violating the JCPOA

The way some people talk, very likely not.

> The way some people talk, very likely not.

Then it is very obviously a moral imperative for the leadership of Iran to have the ability to rapidly develop a nuclear weapon in order to protect its sovereignty, a concept you deny Iran, and its many people.

>The position you're taking only really works if you start from "Iran will always work towards having a nuclear bomb, no matter what."

No, it's a position that assumes some people there have an interest in a nuclear bomb, and some suspicion is warranted - which means a safe deal needed to have them some distance away from a bomb.

After all, if they just wanted nuclear power, they could have trivially had it without all this fuss. It was always so much cheaper to buy LEU than endure all these sanctions.