> When the choice is "let Iran have nukes" or "bomb Iran", you bomb Iran every time.
Where's the proof that Iran has, or is even remotely close to having, nukes? I mean, actual proof, not the kind of "proof" that led us to invade Iraq in '03.
> I'm not at all mad at the US government for deciding to get rid of Iran's regime.
Ah, you're one of those people. You probably thought "Team America: World Police" was an instruction manual, and not satire, yeah?
Iran having nukes is unsubstantiated. I also don’t think they wanted to have nukes. But they also enriched Uranium up to 60% according to IAEA which has no non-military use. They perhaps wanted to use that as leverage in negotiations which turned out to be not much of a deterrence.
Difficult to reconcile the justification of current efforts of "Iran can't have nukes" with the unequivocal claims made less than a year ago that Iran's nuclear capabilities had been "obliterated".
North Korea started out with a "nuclear weapon": Seoul is within artillery range of the border. Consequently the Kim regime has been able to starve and torture its own population, and yes - develop nuclear weapons - without anyone willing to stop them.
You think the problems inside North Korea are ok? Koreans are human too.
Why are we ignoring the problems inside of North Korea? I take slavery and starving people pretty poorly regardless of where it happens.
That said North Korea routinely acts against the rest of the world in ways that are only possible because the rest of the world is unable to retaliate, with the government sponsoring everything from extorting hospitals with ransomware, to dealing drugs, to counterfeiting currency, to abducting film makers (from Hong Kong).
> I take slavery and starving people pretty poorly regardless of where it happens.
A great many of us feel that way, however historically GreatPowers do not - it's control of resources that move the needle for them.
Currently the US makes much of 30K protesters killed in Iran (number in dispute) but it is very much an action rooted in petro dollar geopolitics, oil, and Israel.
Starving people globally no longer get USAID .. a fractional cost compared to the Iran excursion.
The US didn't feel the need to get involved in regime change following any part of the Rwanda Genocide, and the US took the side of Indonesia (who were going for the resource control) against the West Papuans .. the US and UN turned a blind eye to exactly who and how people were tortured to get a favourable vote.
There's a long long list of starving and essentially enslaved people globally that have been ignored in favour of others by the French, the Dutch, the British, Belgium, USofA, etc.
> That said North Korea routinely acts against the rest of the world in ways that are only possible because the rest of the world is unable to retaliate
In real politik terms the same can be said about the USofA and has been said about the former British Empire.
> When the choice is "let Iran have nukes" or "bomb Iran", you bomb Iran every time.
There was also the choice of “Iran let us verify that they are not making nukes, and in return we remove economic sanctions from them”. It was called the JCPOA, and according to non-proliferation experts it worked. And then on the 8th of May 2018 Trump unilaterally withdrew from it.
Let’s not pretend that there were no other options.
Unilateraly on the level of countries. The other signatories (China, France, Russia, the U.K., Germany and the EU) believed that the deal was good and Iran was holding up their end of the bargain at that time.
If the USA government had credible evidence that it is not so, they could have picked up the phone and presented their case to the other signatories. Or at least to their allies. Then once those countries were convinced that something is off they could have withdrawn together from the agreement. Would have less of a terrible optics than how it went down.
> Iran has been the driving force behind a lot of instability in Middle East
I'm loving the current stability that the USA has gifted the world and looking forward to many decades of peace and calm in the middle east. Thank you so much.
That choice is doubly false. On the one hand, there was a diplomatic option. It was working until Trump decided to kill it. On the other, it's insane to think that you can bomb a large, industrialized country of 90 million people out of the ability to make nuclear weapons short of wiping them out of existence.
> When the choice is "let Iran have nukes" or "bomb Iran", you bomb Iran every time.
Where's the proof that Iran has, or is even remotely close to having, nukes? I mean, actual proof, not the kind of "proof" that led us to invade Iraq in '03.
> I'm not at all mad at the US government for deciding to get rid of Iran's regime.
Ah, you're one of those people. You probably thought "Team America: World Police" was an instruction manual, and not satire, yeah?
Iran having nukes is unsubstantiated. I also don’t think they wanted to have nukes. But they also enriched Uranium up to 60% according to IAEA which has no non-military use. They perhaps wanted to use that as leverage in negotiations which turned out to be not much of a deterrence.
Difficult to reconcile the justification of current efforts of "Iran can't have nukes" with the unequivocal claims made less than a year ago that Iran's nuclear capabilities had been "obliterated".
https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/06/irans-nuclear-fa...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/06/sunday-shows-pre...
It's possible for both of these to be true: The leaders of the US are incompetent, and bombing Iran was the right decision.
"Even a stopped clock..."
Pretty sure if the leaders are incompetent, it's not gonna be the right decision to bomb anyone. Seeing as that act requires competence as well.
As we're seeing, they're incompetent at waging war against Iran as well.
[flagged]
Tell me about the problems outside of N. Korea that have resulted from N. Korea's ownership of nuclear weapons?
North Korea started out with a "nuclear weapon": Seoul is within artillery range of the border. Consequently the Kim regime has been able to starve and torture its own population, and yes - develop nuclear weapons - without anyone willing to stop them.
You think the problems inside North Korea are ok? Koreans are human too.
Why are we ignoring the problems inside of North Korea? I take slavery and starving people pretty poorly regardless of where it happens.
That said North Korea routinely acts against the rest of the world in ways that are only possible because the rest of the world is unable to retaliate, with the government sponsoring everything from extorting hospitals with ransomware, to dealing drugs, to counterfeiting currency, to abducting film makers (from Hong Kong).
> I take slavery and starving people pretty poorly regardless of where it happens.
A great many of us feel that way, however historically GreatPowers do not - it's control of resources that move the needle for them.
Currently the US makes much of 30K protesters killed in Iran (number in dispute) but it is very much an action rooted in petro dollar geopolitics, oil, and Israel.
Starving people globally no longer get USAID .. a fractional cost compared to the Iran excursion.
The US didn't feel the need to get involved in regime change following any part of the Rwanda Genocide, and the US took the side of Indonesia (who were going for the resource control) against the West Papuans .. the US and UN turned a blind eye to exactly who and how people were tortured to get a favourable vote.
There's a long long list of starving and essentially enslaved people globally that have been ignored in favour of others by the French, the Dutch, the British, Belgium, USofA, etc.
> That said North Korea routinely acts against the rest of the world in ways that are only possible because the rest of the world is unable to retaliate
In real politik terms the same can be said about the USofA and has been said about the former British Empire.
1 reply →
> When the choice is "let Iran have nukes" or "bomb Iran", you bomb Iran every time.
There was also the choice of “Iran let us verify that they are not making nukes, and in return we remove economic sanctions from them”. It was called the JCPOA, and according to non-proliferation experts it worked. And then on the 8th of May 2018 Trump unilaterally withdrew from it.
Let’s not pretend that there were no other options.
[flagged]
Unilateraly on the level of countries. The other signatories (China, France, Russia, the U.K., Germany and the EU) believed that the deal was good and Iran was holding up their end of the bargain at that time.
If the USA government had credible evidence that it is not so, they could have picked up the phone and presented their case to the other signatories. Or at least to their allies. Then once those countries were convinced that something is off they could have withdrawn together from the agreement. Would have less of a terrible optics than how it went down.
An accord reached between Iran and several world powers, including the United States, in July 2015.
Not Just Obama.
Can the world be saved from central north American partisan squabbling please.
> Iran has been the driving force behind a lot of instability in Middle East
I'm loving the current stability that the USA has gifted the world and looking forward to many decades of peace and calm in the middle east. Thank you so much.
That choice is doubly false. On the one hand, there was a diplomatic option. It was working until Trump decided to kill it. On the other, it's insane to think that you can bomb a large, industrialized country of 90 million people out of the ability to make nuclear weapons short of wiping them out of existence.
> we only planned for the absolute best case scenario, why didn't that scenario happen?
IRGC sympathizers across the world that would rather have the current government than the more progressive predecessor.