> Maybe we should have brokered some kinda deal with Iran to prevent them getting a nuclear weapon then, huh.
Maybe we should have brokered some kind of deal with Russia to prevent them from invading Ukraine. Do you trust American intelligence 100% to verify Iran is not building a nuclear bomb? And if they weren't, why also were they funding these militant groups? What's the point? It's Neo-colonialism in the Middle East.
> At this point they'd be fools to not pursue getting one, and we killed everyone in a position of authority who was rational about it.
The leadership wasn't really rational in your western sense. I'm not sure where you are coming up with that. If they were rational they wouldn't be murdering their own civilians, chanting death to Israel and death to America as a national past time (no sane nation does this, or if you want to argue they do then don't get mad when Americans are burning the Koran or whatever) and funding militants. You're trying to argue from a place that assumes your values about economics and prosperity and global human rights with an entity that does not care about those values.
If they were rational as you'd like them to be they'd just not do any of the things they've been doing. Why does Iran have to get special treatment to not build a nuclear weapon? Have you thought about that? Why do we have to pay them off? Why are they special snowflakes who get to hold the world hostage less they build nuclear bombs to threaten others?
> Cats out of the bag, one more nuclear rogue state.
That's the fault of the rest of the world then for failing to come together to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
> Maybe we should have brokered some kind of deal with Russia to prevent them from invading Ukraine.
I understand history and contemporary events is not your strong suit, but such a deal was very much on the table in December 2021 and the Biden Admin laughed it off. Then again in April 2022.
Burning the Koran is protected free speech, just as burning a flag is, or the Bible, or whatever else you'd like.
The point is we had a deal, and Iran kept their enrichment below weapons development levels for all of that time. Even a few years after the deal was broken by Trump, apparently. We could have kept that status quo going and not dealt with tolls in the strait and expensive military operations, and it would have been better for everyone involved. But now I don't see a path back to that, and no one is interested enough to stop the proliferation or put enough resources into it to "win". Blame whoever you like I guess, but I'm blaming Trump for tearing things up and kicking off this recent war.
Anchoring on this deal is a waste of time. We shouldn't have had to have a deal in the first place. They could just join other responsible countries like, idk, Vietnam, Brazil, and hmmm who else, Switzerland! in not pursuing nuclear weapons.
> We could have kept that status quo going
Like the last time the Houthis disrupted shipping? Or when Iran launched and supported attacks on Israel, plus continued disruption in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq? (Yemen too but mentioned via Houthis). Idk if that's a tolerable situation.
I don't recall the houthis disrupting shipping before 2018. The status quo under before that point was fine for the global economy and for the US. If it wasn't fine for Israel, that's a problem for their own military to deal with, ideally without US backing that drags other countries into the issue.
Good luck with non proliferation but I think the very obvious "we can attack and invade countries without nukes but can't do that to countries with nukes" lesson is being demonstrated to everyone, so countries that don't want to be invaded will be trying to get them now. Anyone near Russia for sure, possibly even Switzerland eventually.
Hey I mean this is your problem too, wherever you are from. You seem a little nonchalant about nuclear proliferation which most consider to be a rather serious matter because of the potential for real nuclear war or nuclear attacks.
I'm in the US, like most posters here. And since we're not going to do a military invasion and occupation of Iran (and I would be against it in any case) this is just how it is. It's not good, I really preferred things under Obama where we at least tried to keep a lid on weapons, but people voted for the right and this is what we're getting for it.
If you've got a good way to stop people from wanting nuclear power and weapons you can try it, and sincerely good luck to you. It would be nice. I don't think you can stop Iran though.
Well we can stop Iran, we already have recently by bombing the sites. They can retaliate of course but they could always do that which is why they built up these missile and drone capabilities and built up militant groups like the Houthis.
Obama was my favorite president and I think his efforts to stop Iran were great, but at the end of the day the agreement was never going to work because in order for it to work you require circumstances which defeat the purpose of the agreement in the first place, which is that Iran would not have an interest (like most countries) in pursuing a nuclear weapon.
To your point about stopping other countries. Well unfortunately nobody in the world except the United States seems to have any interest, and since they are unable to step up and be responsible we'll either have to bomb other countries who try to build nuclear weapons or we'll have to let those weapons spread and hope we don't see nuclear bombs being used. It's really awful. The EU, Russia, and China are the ones who bare the lion's share of the blame if that were to occur. China and Russia for turning a blind eye or outright supporting other countries obtaining the weapons, the EU for not supporting the United States when it seeks to stop the spread.
Maybe we should have brokered some kind of deal with Russia to prevent them from invading Ukraine. Do you trust American intelligence 100% to verify Iran is not building a nuclear bomb? And if they weren't, why also were they funding these militant groups? What's the point? It's Neo-colonialism in the Middle East.
> At this point they'd be fools to not pursue getting one, and we killed everyone in a position of authority who was rational about it.
The leadership wasn't really rational in your western sense. I'm not sure where you are coming up with that. If they were rational they wouldn't be murdering their own civilians, chanting death to Israel and death to America as a national past time (no sane nation does this, or if you want to argue they do then don't get mad when Americans are burning the Koran or whatever) and funding militants. You're trying to argue from a place that assumes your values about economics and prosperity and global human rights with an entity that does not care about those values.
If they were rational as you'd like them to be they'd just not do any of the things they've been doing. Why does Iran have to get special treatment to not build a nuclear weapon? Have you thought about that? Why do we have to pay them off? Why are they special snowflakes who get to hold the world hostage less they build nuclear bombs to threaten others?
> Cats out of the bag, one more nuclear rogue state.
That's the fault of the rest of the world then for failing to come together to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.