[amazingamazing]

[deleted - decided to stop asking questions]

[sodality2]

Your question necessitates the idea that the US is some sort of worldwide nanny state, where anything that happens without an action, the US “let” happen. It’s an innocent question but the assumptions are far more drastic. Reflect on some other alternatives besides “the US is in charge of everything”, especially looking at our track record in the Middle East.

[tptacek]

In matters of nuclear proliferation, that's kind of close to the truth, whether we like it or not.

[twodave]

The premise here is correct only as far as it is true that anyone besides the US possesses the capacity to act. Beyond that point, it is no longer charitable to frame it that way.

[amazingamazing]

Again, just curious - so you believe countries shouldn’t intervene if others decide they want nuclear tech and or weapons?

I see both arguments, but I’m curious what others think

[anonym29]

China and the Soviet Union developing atomic and nuclear capabilities were never a justification to bomb Chinese or Soviet nuclear facilities.

[Detrytus]

Soviet Union was an US peer, in terms of power, and China was their ally. Bombing their nuclear facilities could result in war that the US could just as well lose, so that's why they had to show some restraint. But believe me, they would bomb those facilities if they could.

[e40]

Did those countries vow to wipe another country off the face of the earth?

[whoknowsidont]

Curious what the alternative is here? Let the U.S. do whatever? Genuinely curious.

[UltraSane]

If you trust Iran with nuclear weapons you are not wise.

[andrepd]

Not ripping up a treaty that was being upheld by Iran would be an excellent start.

[NoMoreWars]

That is typically how sovereignty works, yes.

[lwansbrough]

No it isn't. Most countries work with other countries under a shared set of principles. Even China and Russia do this to an extent. Where deviation happens, it happens when a country can afford to do it (see: south China sea disputes.) Sometimes, they'll do it anyway and suffer (see: North Korea.)

Doing whatever you want is just opening yourself fully to the full spectrum of game theory outcomes. The leadership in Iran is discovering what that means.

[hackyhacky]

It would be great if we had a diplomatic agreement with Iran to monitor and limit its nuclear development!

Oh wait, we did. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_...

[awongh]

Part of the reason it was cancelled was because Iran was still funding a bunch of proxy armies and still developing non-nuclear ballistic missiles?

[aisenik]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against...

Probably something other than the one thing that would justify lifting the mid 90's fatwa declaring the creation, possession, and use of nuclear weapons against Islamic law.

How aware is this community of the Supreme Leader's staunch opposition to nuclear weapons?

This is pure imperialism.

[tptacek]

They literally printed a bank note celebrating their nuclear program. The SL is not "staunchly opposed to nuclear weapons".

(I think the B-2 strikes were a terribly stupid idea and that Trump got rolled by Netanyahu here, but I'm not going to be negatively polarized into thinking the Iranian SL is a benign figure.)

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

Stay in the deal that brought their domestic uranium production to 0. This crisis is entirely Trump's fault for pulling out.

https://www.statista.com/chart/23528/irans-stockpile-of--low...

[yyyk]

The limits were to sunset starting from 2026 and end by 2031. The deal was to end with Iran being allowed to enrich as much as they wanted to, just a step away from a bomb.

[sbmthakur]

Do we have irrefutable evidence that Iran was that close to a nuke?

[hypeatei]

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) released a report in May saying they enriched up to 60% U-235 at one of their facilities[0].

> As previously reported, on 5 December 2024, Iran started feeding the two IR-6 cascades producing UF6 enriched up to 60% U-235 at FFEP with UF6 enriched up to 20% U-235, rather than UF6 enriched up to 5% U-235, without altering the enrichment level of the product. The effect of this change has been to significantly increase the rate of production of UF6 enriched up to 60% at FFEP to over 34 kg of uranium in the form of UF6 per month.

0: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

The US only need to claim a country has 'weapons of mass destruction' to start a war. Evidence is not required.

[hackyhacky]

No. In fact, there is no (public) evidence at all.

[jghn]

I mean, we could have not torn up the JPCOA for starters

[awongh]

They are manufacturing consent by saying Iran was days away from having nuclear weapons.

[cchance]

LOL Daily Show had a show about it Netanyahu has been saying Iran will have nukes within weeks, since 2008

[archsurface]

Facilities deep in a mountain, no IAEA access, refusal to negotiate, October 7th, ... You'd have to be quite naive to think it's all above board. (Instead of under a mountain).

[hackyhacky]

They have been saying that (at least) since 1995.

[dardeaup]

Who is 'they'? United States, Israel, media outlet?

[flyinglizard]

What’s the OTHER justification for a hardened nuclear program and having a pile of enriched material that can only be used for weapons?

This is the IAEA report [0], claiming enough material for 9 weapons.

[0] https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Analy...