Dictatorships have no "rights". People have rights.

> The US and Israel are currently nuclear blackmail states.

Neither of these states have at any point said anything on the modern era that can be implied to be a threat to nuke anybody.

Part of that is because it would be a bad strategy for them, but nonetheless "nuclear blackmail state" and "nuclear state" is not the same thing.

Trump had done it several times.

Trump says a lot of shit.

Why exactly do you suppose the US gets away with carrying out military attack or threatening to carry out military attack against a new country every couple of months?

Because of their conventional military.

190 countries signed the non proliferation treaty for a very good reason, so no they don’t have the right to it in any sense of the word on the international stage.

Especially not when they’re mass murdering protestors and funding islamic extremism left and right

Okay so neither then does Israel yet here we are a country with illicit nuclear weapons that murdered scores of thousands of civilians has what standing to do what now?

Israel never signed the NPT, like India and Pakistan.

Oh wow cool even more unhinged than I realized

Opposition to Iran’s regime does not imply support for Israel’s

They actually do. And I say it as a European and I think the Iranian regime is as bad as it gets, and won't shed a tear if they all get executed.

What recent months show us, is that it's a rough world - there are no friends. I'm rooting for European countries to accelerate their nuclear weapons programs. In an ideal world, of course I would be against. But the world is far from ideal. The current alternative is being dictated the rules by Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin. Thanks, but no.

The US is also murdering protesters and funding Christian extremists. So what now?

Get back to me when the scale is similar and I will change my mind

So around November.

Next up, Hannibal Lector marches for change of regime in I-ran and better life for I-ranians. When asked if that's not a bit odd, he says, get back at me when my crimes are on a similar scale.

There was no “go kill protestors” order given here.

As opposed to America who are only non-mass murdering protestors.

Iran signed the NPT.

The NPT did not exist at the time of the US developing nuclear weapons, and it explicitly allows US (and other pre-existing nuclear powers') weapons.

Israel, like India and Pakistan, simply never signed it, forgoing the international nuclear technology market as a consequence but also avoiding a treaty obligation not to develop them.

That was before the revolution. The revolutionary government still honored the deal, but that's been obviously a losing move for a while. The whole Middle East recognizes that, just look at how many countries Pakistan has sharing agreements with recently.

Treaty obligations do not disappear with a revolution

They might not disappear, but it's more like loan sharks insisting you must inherit your father's gambling debts than anything. The US and Israel have absolutely no place criticizing others for breaking agreements in any case.

Such as the Paris Agreement, right?

The Paris Agreement included an explicit clause allowing parties to exit it after giving notice of withdrawal. It did not go out of effect immediately on Trump's election, but the administration went through the legal procedure.

The NPT has much stricter terms for withdrawal, which in any case Iran has not followed.

(The better and much more relevant analogy would be the JCPOA. That's what happens when the US does foreign policy by "executive agreement" instead of treaty. Foreign countries should not value them more than the paper they're written on.)

No such right exists, except in moral terms, but if you are going to invoke morals, the Iranian regime does not hold up well. So no, they do not.

Perhaps you will argue that the US or Israel or Pakistan or North Korea have conducted themselves in a way where they do not have that moral right either, but that is a different debate, and either way it is moot because they do have them.

> The rational move for Iran to prevent itself from being bullied is to have nukes like North Korea

North Korea invaded South Korea, stole a US Navy ship (the Pueblo, which they still proudly exhibit), dug large infiltration tunnels under the DMZ, kidnapped hundreds, or even thousands people from SK (and Japan, to a lesser extent), and have assassinated, or attempted to assassinate, multiple SK heads of state, and perpetrated acts of terror like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_858

What did the US or SK do to them before their nuclear program that constituted "bullying?"

> Does Iran not have the same rights of self-defense and sovereignty as the US and Israel?

Iran signed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

The former government, a US puppet regime. Why should they honor a deal that doesn't benefit them when the US and Israel refuse to play by the rules?

And US signed Budapest Memorandum. Both are equally hollow.

>Does Iran not have the same rights of self-defense and sovereignty as the US and Israel?

No. If they wanted self-defense and sovereignty they should have become stronger not weaker after the revolution.

Are you saying that the USA have 'human peace' as a goal? Where have you been the last 50 years? Mars?

And it's precisely the US who's not acting rationally nor have any goals for human peace.

So you rather have a world controlled by the Chinese axis?

"Chinese axis".

In many ways I think it would be better than the world controlled by the US axis.

Then again, I am not from the US nor Israel nor any muslim country. I just hope the countries I care about stay out of this Iran deal.

This would allow me to quietly hope that Iran somehow wins this in the long run. I have this tendency of supporting the aggressed party in uneven conflicts.

If you are living in a western country, you are talking out of extreme privilege and zero sense.

Automatically presuming that the weak side is the morally right is such a skewed an naive world view.

I presume no such thing. I never implied morality to the Iranian government.

However, in this case, the US-Israel axis is undoubtedly the agressor, and morally indefensible.

In the Russian invasion against Ukraine, I can hope Ukraine succeedes without ascribing morality to the Ukrainian government.

Even when Iran is funding and arming Hamas, hezbollah, houthis, irqai militias, calls for the destruction of Israel, a trying to build such capability? When is a preemptive strike legitimate?

Are we going to pretend Israel has no genocidaire ambitions against basically every neighboring country? What do you think ideas of "greater Israel" are?

Hell, the US ambassator to Israel basically admitted to it in an recent interview with Tucker Carlson.

Also, lest we forget, the US has a huge laundry list of supporting insurgencies and actively sponsoring coups everywhere. Especially in Latin America.

To be frank, Iran sounds pretty tame in comparison. If your argument is that they are evil, I would counter they are definitely the lesser of two evils.

So.... Go Persia?

“Greater Israel” is such a stupid take, conspiracy from Islamist propaganda. I can count with both my hands the number of people that believe that in Israel.

Let’s perform a thought experiment. Israel is 8 million Jews, half of the country is an unpopulated desert, our largest border is with Jordan which is barely defensible. And you think that we want to conquer Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and parts of Iraq? With what army? How can we support such a conquest? How will we defend that border? Sharing a border with Iran? How will 8 million Jews handle the 40 million Muslims that will allegedly be conquered? This makes so little sense that believing it just exposes your radical bias.

> I can count with both my hands the number of people that believe that in Israel.

I hope you are counting the current prime minister with your fingers.

> And you think that we want to conquer Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and parts of Iraq?

I think Israel is an extremely aggressive country, yes.

> How will 8 million Jews handle the 40 million Muslims that will allegedly be conquered?

Conquered? No, the 40 million would be murdered if Israel has its way.

Speaking of numbers is very disingenuous when it an bring along the US to this fight.

I said that Israel has genocidaire ambitions towards its neighbors, I never said anything about conquest.

Population numbers would matter only if Israel had ambitions to rule over the people. When your intention is murder the numbers are only a challenge to your goal.

So you’re saying that Israel is planning to kill 40 million people with the help of USA? jeez man, you gotta lay of the kool aid. That’s some deep conspiracy shit.

Planning? I can't say.

Desire? Absolutely. That's what they have been doing with the Palestinians after all.

As I said before, I have no dog in this race. I personally prefer the countries I care about to not get involved in this conflict, and hope the US-Israel axis lose somehow.

I stole that silly axis jargon from you. It is very fitting there now.

Why this fake dilemma? This US administration is acting terribly irrationally and dangerously, independently of what China does.

> You think that all countries should get the same rights?

Do you think all people in your country should get the same rights?

They do, unless they commit crimes, then these rights get severely limited (like every country in the world)

So then all countries should have same rights.

Are you saying that countries and people are the same?

And I’m not entirely sure what point are you trying to make, that terror countries like the houthis should have nuclear weapons, or that people in a country should not have equal rights.

Yes countries are people and to secure their existence nuclear option should be perused. This was much better written here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47191788

It’s amazing to me that you truly think that terrorists having nuclear weapons will make the world safer.

Terrorists already have nuclear weapons. Of course no country having nukes is ideal, but in absence of that possibility everyone having them is better, unless your reasoning is "I hope my side has them and the other side doesn't."

Of course that that’s my reasoning. You don’t start war out of a presumption of power equality. Wars are won by a power imbalance.

When someone is attacking me obviously I want the bigger and stronger weapon.