← Back to context

Comment by SideQuark

17 hours ago

Iran was little threat to the US before the US attacked. Now the US likely has earned itself more decades of terrorists, while simultaneously losing its military and political support from other countries.

If the US objective was self destruction or massive face plant, it is certainly getting closer to its objective.

This ignores the possibility that we have set their nuclear program back to starting from scratch.

  • It ignores we already had that, in 2016, with experts from all over the world doing inspections and agreeing it worked. Then Trump blew up the deal against the wishes of the rest of the free world, claiming he’d make a better deal, which he got zero from. Advisors, both hand picked and military, told him this would be the outcome, which he ignored.

    We have not set their program to zero. They now have, and will continue to have, people trained in the knowledge of how to rebuild it. They now have massively more incentive to do so. Countries in the region now have more reason to help. Countries the world over have more incentive to contain US idiocy, as yet again we screw their economies for made up reasons.

    As do their allies, and the raft of allies the US has lost over this idiocy will hurt US for decades, likely never to be repaired.

    This is why Iran has won. The US has so destroyed brand US that it’ll never regain trust anywhere, economically, militarily, or morally.

    • > It ignores we already had that, in 2016, with experts from all over the world doing inspections and agreeing it worked. Then Trump blew up the deal against the wishes of the rest of the free world, claiming he’d make a better deal, which he got zero from. Advisors, both hand picked and military, told him this would be the outcome, which he ignored.

      1) JCPOA was in effect for barely more than two years. Iran's nuclear work prior started way back circa 2000. It was killed before we can say anything about its effectiveness.

      2) IIRC, JCPOA didn't prevent Iran from developing nuclear tech. It only limited capacity. They were free to do all the R&D they wanted.

      3) Iran was doing weaponization work prior to the deal which they didn't disclose. So taking them at their word on the subject is probably not a good idea.

      Trump pulling out from the deal was dumb, because it probably was slowing weaponization down, but the idea that the deal was stopping Iran from developing weaponization tech is not supported by the aims of the deal itself.

      > We have not set their program to zero. They now have, and will continue to have, people trained in the knowledge of how to rebuild it.

      Very close to it. Lots of facilities were destroyed, and I believe a majority of their scientists were killed.

      > They now have massively more incentive to do so.

      Debatable. I can see it going either way.

      > Countries in the region now have more reason to help. Countries the world over have more incentive to contain US idiocy, as yet again we screw their economies for made up reasons.

      Nearly all the countries in the region want Iran gone. They are a destabilizing force for all their neighbors.

      > As do their allies

      Iran has pretty much 0 official allies. Their only allies come in the form of "we hate the US too, so we will help you be a thorn in their side"

      > This is why Iran has won

      Won what? If that's winning, then I'll take losing.

      > The US has so destroyed brand US that it’ll never regain trust anywhere, economically, militarily, or morally.

      This remains to be seen I think. Honestly, if Europe kicks us out I'll be happy personally. I look forward to the day the US isn't running the oceans as a toll road for the globe and everyone handles their own backyards. I think we are far enough past WW2 that the world no longer needs a nanny.

      5 replies →

  • Weird, just a few days ago he said we needed two more weeks of war to destroy their nuclear program.

    • Maybe the US military is aiming for a greater level of confidence in order to say "definitely destroyed" than some random guy online needs in order to say "possibly destroyed"?