Something like 400 people just died because of a claim about nuclear weapons which is not backed up by evidence. Claims that have been echoed for decades…
Purportedly 400 people just died… Was it because a sovereign country wants to have Nuclear power? Maybe? Maybe not? Was it because Israel already has Nukes? Who knows… But it’s not a simple end of story situation unless lives have no value.
Radiopharmacy / Nuclear pharmacy. While peaceful, it's a delicate science and some kind of inspections are usually enforced. Thankfully, Iran did allow IAEA inspectors and is a signatory of the NPT (non-proliferation treaty). One could wish that was the reality of the nuclear operations of certain other states which are not scrutinized.
It is all very, even exceedingly simple. Iran’s nuclear program had no civilian explanation or justification. There’s nothing to be done with 60% enriched material other than go for nuclear weapons within a very short timeframe.
Let's get rid of all nuclear weapons. Why are we picking on Israel here? Unlike the US Israel has never used theirs (or admitted they actually have them). Russia has openly threatened the west with nuclear attack.
It's not really the reason Iran wants to have nuclear weapons though. Iran wants to have nuclear weapons to destroy Israel but more generally to be able to act with impunity.
Israel has nothing against Iran. Before the Islamic revolution there were warm relations between the countries and the people. They are pretty distant geographically and until now have never fought a direct war. Iran has been actively attacking Israel via proxies for decades now and openly claims it wants to destroy it. Israel, at least to date, has shown that it can be trusted to use nuclear weapons as a pure deterrent.
I'd rather live in a world without nuclear weapons but I'm a lot more worried about Russia and Pakistan (e.g.).
By the way, we've seen what value security guarantees have to countries willing to give up nuclear deterrence in Ukraine. Not worth anything.
Israel and the Palestinians have a history of violence from Israel's first day as a country. Israel and Iran not really. More recently Israel has been attacked by Palestinians on Oct 7th. Iran was involved in training Hamas: https://ecfr.eu/article/iran-hamas-and-islamic-jihad-a-marri...
"The Hamas-led attacks against Israel on 7 October reflected their own independent calculations. Although they could not have happened without the provision of long-term Iranian support, the attacks likely came as an unwelcome surprise for Tehran, which over the last two months has avoided giving Palestinian groups full-throated support. Whether Hamas and PIJ remain tightly aligned with Iran, however, will depend on the outcome of the war in Gaza and wider dynamics in the Middle East’s fluctuating geopolitics."
Israel has really no history of any hostility towards Iran that predates their proxy wars on Israel. There is absolutely no rational reason or excuse for Iran to be attacking Israel.
Israel has been oppressing Palestinians long before Oct 7th.
Israel was involved in supporting ISIS. That's why ISIS never attacked Israel (except that one time accidentally which they apologized for! How crazy is that?)
> Israel has really no history of any hostility towards Iran that predates their proxy wars on Israel. There is absolutely no rational reason or excuse for Iran to be attacking Israel.
Israel has a history of hostility towards multiple neighbouring states. US has invaded Iraq for Israel. Iran does not want to be next.
> Exactly.
So you agree Israel should not be allowed nuclear weapons
Israel wasn't really at war with either Lebanon or Yemen or with the Palestinians. It was with Hezbollah and the Houthis and Hamas. All attacked Israel with no provocation before Israel retaliated.
Syria is a different story. Israel did bomb military assets in Syria once the Assad regime fell/fled out of concerns they would fall into the hands of Jihadists. It also took territory to expand the zone it controls in case said Jihadists have intentions of proceeding into Israel. It took advantage of a vacuum in an uncertain security situation. During Assad's reign it did not bomb Syria since the 1973 war (where Syria attacked Israel with no provocation, that was Assad the father fwiw).
Sure, by that token the US wasn’t really at war with Germany or Vietnam, it was at war with the Nazis and the Viet Cong. It’s a meaningless distinction to anyone actually affected by the wars.
Additionally, Israel bombed Damascus during Assad’s reign.
Here’s one recent example (bombing an embassy building):
Iran seemed like they were doing fine in the existence department, no? I have a lot of disagreement (to put it mildly) with Israel, but I think they'd be fine letting Iran be if they'd stop funding Hezbollah and the Houthis, and quieted down with the "Israel must be destroyed" rhetoric.
(And before the argument changes subject, I think Iran [and others] are justified in being angry with Israel about what they're doing in Gaza.)
Netanyahu has consistently said he wanted a regime change in Iran, alongside Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan. Iran does not want to end up like the other countries.
I mean, other neighboring countries close to Israel have largely made peace with the country, and they have no nukes. Iran stands out in terms of constantly funding proxies to attack it.
I guess this is a half truth- that people were still not happy with Iran- who they were still funding and also continuing to develop non-nuclear ballistic missiles?
In the Obama deal Iran was allowed to back out if the US broke its terms of the agreement (which happened because of Trump pulling out), so they are acting 100% in accordance still with the original Obama deal. Do you have evidence otherwise?
Breaking promises with them means we give up the ability to work with them diplomatically on other goals. "They haven't done everything we'd like them to do" isn't a valid response to someone fulfilling the terms of an agreement you've made with them.
Trump chose to break promises. Now we are seeing the outcome of the resulting breakdown of diplomatic relations.
At some point we have to try to make things better, and believe that better (even just a smidge at a time, and possibly with great effort) is possible. Or else we might as well just build the suicide booths from Futurama.
It feels deeply cynical and jaded to me to say, well, just let Iran fund armies and encourage ethnic cleansing, as long as they don't do this one specific thing that is more important to Americans. As long as the horrors you create only affect people in the middle east, we can look the other way.
>A world where Iran has no nukes is a safer world, end of story.
Safer for who? Would anyone be lobbing missiles into Tehran if Iran had nukes?
Given how Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine were treated after dismantling their nuclear programs, and given how much grace countries like North Korea are given you'd be an idiot to not have nuclear program, especially when the US accuses you of having on.
Remember, Iran agreed to nuclear deproliferation under Obama, and the next guy tore it up. It's only rational to try and develop nukes and I'd argue its safer if Iran had nukes. Kids wouldn't be dying under rubble in Tehran otherwise.
Nuclear deproliferation is complete joke unless the US and Russia are the first to give up their nukes.
