Did those countries vow to wipe another country off the face of the earth?

Not like when Netanyahu pledged to turn Gaza into a "deserted island"¹, but if that's the kind of rhetoric that justifies US bombing campaigns, then why haven't we bombed Israel's not-so-secret nuclear weapon production facilities, too?

[1] https://archive.is/IcLBh

Both can be true. Bibbi is a war criminal. Iran pledged to wipe Israel off the map.

Soviet Union was an US peer, in terms of power, and China was their ally. Bombing their nuclear facilities could result in war that the US could just as well lose, so that's why they had to show some restraint. But believe me, they would bomb those facilities if they could.

Probably not your intent, but this is a very clear summation of why it is is likely understood as critical to Iranian security to develop and publicly test a nuclear weapon.

The development, acquisition, and use of nuclear weapons has been against Islamic law in the Islamic Republic of Iran since the mid 90s under a fatwa issued by Khamenei, the Supreme Leader. It is well understood that Iran wants the ability to develop nuclear weapons in the event of an existential threat that justifies the atrocity of their creation but all of the evidence suggests that they are otherwise uninterested in nuclear weapons.

We do not significantly disagree, but I take umbrage at the repetition of the pernicious lie that Iran wants nuclear weapons. They want sovereignty in their land and justice for the Islamic people. This is a reasonable position.

Understood. I am just making the latter argument that any head of state in a conflicted region must, as a matter of baseline sovereignty, pursue a nuclear deterrent.

It’s clear at this point that such deterrent works, and it’s also not clear what other deterrent might work in its stead. Some of the big imperialist wars of the last half-century likely would have been avoided had the invadee been armed with nukes.

So just to be clear, it's only morally acceptable to wage wars against countries that are unquestionably incapable of defending themselves?

I did not say anything about "morally acceptable", I was talking about what's possible, and yes, it is much easier to wage wars against countries that are weaker than you.

The conversation wasn't about whether or not bombing Iran was possible (it obviously was), but whether or not it was morally justifiable.