Like Israel?
Interesting way to describe the government the people of Gaza.
If Palestinians launch the rockets from Gaza to Israel, why should Israel to continue their trade with them? This is counterintuitive.
I'm talking about motion from Gazan waters to directly adjacent international waters, none of which involves touching anything sovereign to Israel.
That doesn't make sense, it seems as if they're held hostage by Israel forced to stay in the very land where their own terrorist government might impress them into servitude towards use against Israel.
The sad part is that Egypt has an obligation under international law to allow refugees into its territory. But Egypt refused.
So ... that is why they only cared about themself and did not involve with Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, ..
Obama had a perfectly good deal in place with Iran before Trump fucked it all up. Military action was not the only way to stop them.
What makes you think the Iranian regime is trustworthy to actually respect that deal and not just continue building nukes on the side while using diplomacy to string everyone along that they aren't?
You know who else had a deal? Ukraine. Did that deal stop them from being attacked by Russia? Can you stop a military invasion by waving the piece of paper with the deal in the enemy's face? Because that's why nukes are the best insurance policy over deals and why Iran desperately wants them.
How can people be so gullible to blindly trust Iran's word thinking a deal means anything?
Ukraine's deal was vague promises with vague consequences, which of course materialized into zero ability to stop a land invasion.
The Iranian deal before its destruction was very much concerned with safeguarding against any attempt to "potentially circumvent" and gave auditors alot of freedom to investigate without obstruction.
Your partisan posting in regards to the notion of the war being pointless indicate that you're coming more from a place of emotion than logic. I can empathize, but strongly caution that its important we discuss the facts of arguments rather than gesturing that all but you fail to see the light.
That's reddit logic. Do you think invading armies or dictatorship seeking to build nukes to preserve their power, care about the semantics of deals?
I don't think anyone believes the Iranian regime has ever been trustworthy. Probably why part of Obama's deal included inspections, surveillance, and monitoring.
It was a treaty, many concessions existed to ensure both parties were comfortable with the arrangement. But that does not at all suggest that the agreement didnt account for foul play on either side.
It was an incredibly solid diplomatic option employed for several years, during which the perpetual "months away from nuclear weapons" rhetoric never proved well-founded. Iran's existance is perpetually an existential threat when the only alternative to diplomacy is its total destruction at the expense of American and Iranian lives.
But Iran did violate the agreement. The agreement was not just between the US and Iran, it had other parties as well. Yet, when US withdrew, Iran immediately violated it. Why? If they had no goal to pursue military-grade enrichment, why violate the agreement?
Biden's admin did not resume the agreement as well due to those violations by Iran.
I see this agreement as failure for the reason that it did not prevent in a structural way Iran from acquiring enriched material, with or without violations.
> Iran's existance is perpetually an existential threat when the only alternative to diplomacy is its total destruction at the expense of American and Iranian lives.
I do not believe that Iran is interested in diplomacy at all. They were never interested in diplomacy. Why did they fund all these groups around the Middle East if IR is so peaceful?
It has plenty of commentary on the subject of how Iran moved its program into the shadows, how Iran concealed equipment, etc.
I'd rather have a paper from non- partisan source.
Israel, like the US, needs to be in a permanent state of war to keep the ball moving
Remember STUXNET? Have you thought for a second that maybe if their centrifuges and nuclear facilities weren't constantly attacked and sabotaged by US and Israel every step of the way for the past few decades, plus having their top nuclear scientists assassinated every now and then, they could have had nukes a long time ago when those warnings were issued without those constant roadblocks setting them back?
It can’t be both ways. Either way the administration is lying, so I just don’t trust any of the reasons given for the current conflict.
The sad part is this is exactly what Trump and his administration, as well as the larger Republican Party, have wanted for years. My inherent distrust of every government action until I see overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
It can be over time. A country can rebuild its nuclear ambitions after they've been completely destroyed.
Do you think Iran just gave up their nuclear ambition and 40 years of work after a bomb raid? "Think Mark, think"
Needlessly patronizing. But moving past that, how could their capabilities have been “completely obliterated” months ago and yet they are now so close to making a bomb that it warranted all this? That doesn’t make any sense. Just like the tariffs or any other controversial decision, the administration is giving different answers to different people at different times. They seed talking points, they do not provide useful information.
So again, either June was a failure and they lied or they are lying about this attack.
The thing about nukes is that they massively disincentivize military attacks on your sovereignty. That strikes me as a perfectly legitimate reason to acquire them.
If that's as far as your logic takes you, there's no point arguing with you further.
>Despite decades of antipathy and ongoing conflicts over Kashmir they have managed to restrain themselves from firing one at India
You think India is OK with Pakistan having nukes?
India (which also has nukes) may hate that Pakistan has that capability, but there's nothing they can do about it. I'd say Pakistan is considerably more secure with than without. And despite being an Islamic country with a nexus to terrorism they haven't blown up any western countries.
The moment IR gets nukes, Saudis and all the other countries around them will get nukes as well.
I don’t understand why everyone is so hell bent on not preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. We have enough of this crap already, and the last thing we need is more nukes.
If Iran was on the path to developing nukes, the correct path here was to:
1. Show the evidence to congress, and declare war legally based on the facts.
2. Get international buy-in, and work with our allies (all of whom would very much like to prevent Iran from procuring a nuclear weapon).
This was a hastily started war with flimsy goals and seemingly no real urgency. And one of the first things we did as part of our attack was to bomb an elementary school, killing hundreds of children.
Critics of this war aren't "hell bent on not preventing the spread of nuclear weapons". We're mostly looking at the situation, and thinking "this is not great".
No, I am not. It has nothing to do with Trump his abilities to speak only truth or always lie.
IAEA itself reported the 60% figure [1].
[1] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
And again, nothing about this justifies the way this war was initiated.
The nuclear capacity we bombed “very successfully” months ago?
You can read IAEA report yourself: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
Anyway have a good one
It's only pointless as long as you ignore their legitimate attempts of building nukes. If you don't want them to have nukes, then military action is the only way to stop them unfortunately. Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage, so might as well do everything you can to prevent that before it happens, now that Russia is too busy to lend them a hand.
>Iran has generally been an active and persistant threat for many US firms long before this war began
I doubt this. Iran's leadership, like any dictatorship, just wants to be left alone to subjugate its people and enjoy the masses of wealth and power they have. When you're in such a privileged but fragile position, you don't go around poking the hornet's nest looking to start a fight with the biggest military in the world, because it would mean your end.
But Iran will probably retaliate now that they got attacked. OR, it will be a false flag to justify boots on the ground. IDK.