Especially when you use smart weapons to try to minimize it from happening as collatoral damage (though that doesn't change the awefulness when a school seems to have wrongly been targeted, smart weapons are only as good as their target information).
It's much cheaper to just gun down 30,000 protestors in the street protesting that they don't want to be raped by Islamic religious morality police if they don't wear hats. Or to just fire missiles randomly at civilian areas such as the one that resulted in 11 year old Nesia Karadi dying today from the sever wounds she sustained from Iran's missiles fired into Israeli civilian areas.
One of the issues that came up when Russia invaded Ukraine was that Russia just didn't have the weapons they thought they did, particularly tanks. There's been a bunch of corruption where generals have pocketed funds and just kicked the can down the street.
The US now spends $1T+ a year on war and is asking for $1.5T next year. At least half of that is weapon systems. A lot of these are probably way too expensive and because of multiple suppliers, incredibly hard to scale up. For the missile interceptors, it may take 3-5 years. Logistically, imagine if there was way more standardization of parts so this was easier to scale? A bit like the missing Russian tanks, US military procurement is corrupt. We have the weapon systems we bought but we pay way too much. So we're basically paying $1T+ for a military that can't do anything about the Iranian military. The disparity is so large that one day of sustaining the war is a good part of what the Iranian military costs for a year.
Last year it was widely rumored that the 12 day war ended because the US and Israel were running out of missile interceptors. That's kind of why many didn't expect this war to happen because that shortage was never solved [1]. It's evidence that the US expected this to be a decapitation strike like Venezuela and for it to be over in a matter of days. This problem is reportedly dire [2].
But that was never going to happen and now the US has mired itself in a war it cannot end without a humiliating defeat and withdrawal.
We don't have exact figures because of censorship but it was estimated at the start of this that ~90% of missiles were being intercepted over Israel and now that figure was ~50% before the ceasefire. Ballistic missiles and drones in particular are cheaper to produce than their respective interceptors and can be produced in much higher volume. Launchers are cheap and easy to produce.
Another telling factor in all of this is the US military's continued use of so-called "standoff" weapons. This includes Tomahawk missiles as well as precision-guided muntiions from planes. You generally don't want to use these if you can because you sacrifice ordinance for fuel. So why do you do it? Because you don't have the air superiority you need.
Those weapons too are more expensive and slow to scale up production.
It's incredibly damaging to US interests too that they've been unable and/or unwilling to defend allies and their own bases in the Gulf.
What I hope comes out of this is some pushback on why exactly we're spending $1T (or $1.5T) a year and what exactly we're getting for that. It's an unimaginable amount of money that could otherwise do so much good. Yet instead we're acting like a belligerent yet still failing empire.
It's all beginning to fit together a bit too neatly.
We've had 'China invades Taiwan in 2027' on the radar for a couple of years, and now Trump is disarming the US, and demonstrating it's impotence in certain areas, just in time.
The China invades Taiwan fearmongering is kinda silly for two main reasons:
1. Crossing 100 miles of ocean (between mainland China and Taiwan) may as well be 10,000 miles. It's essentially impassable.. Just look at Iran, where a country that has endured decades of sanctions is impossible to invade for the largest and most wel-funded military on Earth. In Iran, the logistics of a sea landing mirror the size and complexity of D-Day and we just don't have that military anymore. Neither does China.
China would have to land somewhere between 500k and 1M soldiers in Taiwan then supply them. They simply don't have that amphibious capability. And anyone who thinks they do just doesn't understand how complicated and extensive the logistics are. Vehicles, weapons, medical supplies, food, ammunition, repair facilities, etc etc etc.
China could blockade but invade? No. Which brings me to...
2. China has absolutely no need to invade Taiwan, strategically. All but 10 countries on Earth have the so-called One China policy, which is a recognition that Taiwan isn't an independent nation and is part of China. China thinks very long term and believes the situation will ultimately be resolved. It's the US who thinks very short-term and likes to invade without thinking of the consequences.
What would an invasion of Taiwan (if they could pull it off, which they can't) do to China's standing in the world, diplomatic and trade relations, etc? Think about Russia invading Ukraine. Suddenly Finland and Sweden abandon their neutrality and join NATO. The invasion has actually strengthened NATO.
Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't listen to the biggest arms dealer on Earth about what a military threat China is and how we need to expand the military and buy even more weapons.
> What would an invasion of Taiwan (if they could pull it off, which they can't) do to China's standing in the world, diplomatic and trade relations, etc? Think about Russia invading Ukraine. Suddenly Finland and Sweden abandon their neutrality and join NATO. The invasion has actually strengthened NATO.
This is especially true now, when the US is shooting itself in the foot over Iran, making China look like a rational and stable actor and the US like a chaotic and unreliable partner. There is no gain for China in forcibly taking over Taiwan, they will try to do it through other means over the next 10–20 years. They know that using force to take Taiwan would be the biggest gift they could give the US right now.
Spent billions on an unnecessary and ILLEGAL war that killed innocent people, American and allied soldiers, depleted your weapons, burned every ally you had in the world, created millions of enemies and potential terrorists, increased prices for your population, SO MUCH WINNING.
And we have not nearly seen the end of it!
Today I heard that the regime in the USA is considering PUNISHMENT for NATO allies for not joining the war that is just an excursion, even though they were not obligated to join or help, they also were not consulted or even informed in any way about the 'plans'.
And they weren't even needed, according to the clown that millions of easily manipulated Americans voted for.
I feel nothing but disgust for that country right now.
If you assume that war with China is on the horizon, it's arguable that this is a good thing for the US to see weaknesses exposed now while there is still something to do about it. Even if that war (and I hope it's not) is not on the horizon, real battlefield testing in what is becoming a new battlefield of drones and smaller missiles/weapons is necessary and highly valuable. Contrast that with, for example, China who has yet to demonstrate its combined arms ability, and its soldiers and equipment have yet to be tested in any meaningful way. There's a lot of value in battlefield experience - Ukraine itself is a great example.
Although the war in Iran is very obviously justified, I am writing here a bit more broadly about some of the trade-offs for the military. Our defense industrial base has become sophisticated, expensive, and slow because we would increasingly get sold more "advanced" weapons. That's great when you are facing an enemy like Iran without an ability to really fight back, but in a war with a peer state you need more munitions faster and cheaper. Industrial production is key, else you become quickly exhausted.
Can't have another North Korea sitting in the Middle East with control over so much oil supply. Don't want Gulf States to go and get nuclear weapons in response to Iran getting them (nuclear non-proliferation).
I'm not justifying the war on White House press releases. The additional justifications though just strengthen the need.
Separately it's a poor argument to say well Iran's nuclear capabilities were obliterated (they were certainly damaged if nothing else) therefore further attacks are unjustified when Iran could build up missile defense, missile attack, and drone capabilities and make a future incursion to stop their nuclear program impossible without extreme destruction to the Middle East and the rest of global trade.
Which, you know, was what they were actually doing. Hence the missile attacks. We just caught them before we couldn't actually do much about it without significant loss of life and equipment.
Keep in mind that there's only a risk of Iran gaining nuclear weapons in the first place because Trump in his first term reneged on the deal where we had inspectors in Iran to ensure they weren't making them.
Random, unprovoked attacks by other countries only underscores Iran's need to build nuclear weapons. Mission accomplished.
This is false because Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon before Trump ever came into office. the JCPOA was signed under Obama. It wouldn't have existed had Iran not already been pursuing nuclear weapons.
Iran can obviously hide nuclear weapons and uranium enrichment activities from the inspectors. Unless of course you believe the US intelligence agency and inspection agencies are capable of perfect intelligence. :)
> Random, unprovoked attacks by other countries only underscores Iran's need to build nuclear weapons. Mission accomplished.
Doesn't make sense. You're ignoring Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and other geostrategic concerns. Even if Iran wasn't trying to build a nuclear weapon they were stockpiling missiles such that they could seize control over the Straight of Hormuz and ensure tolls were paid to their autocratic regime. It's beyond bizarre to me that someone can, presumably in an honest way, think that this war just randomly started and was unprovoked. Incompatible world views.
Iran and a large part of the top religious leaders in Shia Islam (who also run Iran a strict Islamic state) have called for the death and destruction of me and my country for my entire life. Iran has spent billions working towards that end and funded multiples of the suffering that occurred in Gaza (such as the war in Yemen. Heck Iran provided the funding that enabled Oct 7th ultimately resulting in Israel taking action in Gaza making Iran in part responsible for Gaza's horrific suffering as well).
In my lived experience, Iran and by extension Shia Islam (as it is very senior Shia Islam leaders making religious proclamations/justifications declaring it) has been at war with my country my entire life and sponsored random attacks against Americans and also non-Americans out of the hopes of weakening the US to promote their 45+ year vocally stated goal of the death/destruction of my country. They have ordered hits around the world on people that wrong speak about Islam such as Rushdie. And they kidnap/rape/murder little girls in their nation if they don't wear the proper hats. These are Islamist religious fanatics intent on reshaping the world to match Shia Islams world view. Their 'moderates' ordered 30,000 of their own people gunned down in the streets, then went to hospitals and murdered nurses and doctors that treated injured civilians. That is the 'moderate' position in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
> Comparing Iran to North Korea is something someone with no actual understanding of Iran would do. Iran is not a hermit kingdom.
That was your comparison, not mine. My comparison was that once they obtain a nuclear weapon, there's nothing we can do anymore. They can obtain more, and then use them as a threat to tax the Straight, further enriching their regime, &c. That's what has happened to North Korea (minus the strategic position and of course it's slightly different due to China).
The JCPOA wasn't effective for two reasons:
1. We weren't getting the cooperation we needed in the first place to examine nuclear sites.
2. We shouldn't have to pay off Iran to not get nuclear weapons. Why do they get to be treated differently than any other country?
1. We had anytime/anywhere access to their nuclear facilities and 24 day access to any square inch of their country. They never violated that part of the agreement and it's also silly to think intelligence didn't already know where all the facilities were.
2. The payments were a trivial part of the deal. It's especially ironic given this administration keeps offering payments to end the current conflict.
The reality is any deal we sign today is going to be substantially worse in every way for us than the JCPOA was.
> Why do they get to be treated differently than any other country?
This is the crux of the thing though. North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, and even South Africa all had successful and clandestine nuclear programs without any military intervention. Going to war with Iran is completely arbitrary - there is no direct threat to the US, and we did it without any cooperation with any of the countries actually dependent on Gulf oil.
> This is the crux of the thing though. North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, and even South Africa all had successful and clandestine nuclear programs without any military intervention. Going to war with Iran is completely arbitrary - there is no direct threat to the US, and we did it without any cooperation with any of the countries actually dependent on Gulf oil.
Or maybe we just learned our lesson. Is the world better for each of those countries having nuclear weapons? I think not. Why permit yet another one to join the club? Why does Iran get special treatment? Do we need a JCPOA with all other countries, to pay them off as well to not get nuclear weapons? If you are in favor of nuclear non-proliferation you have to become a circus star to be able to jump through all of the contradictory hoops needed to justify somehow giving Iran special treatment or suggesting it's ok for them to have a nuclear bomb.
Calling the war completely arbitrary is intellectually dishonest and pointless in a discussion.
> and we did it without any cooperation with any of the countries actually dependent on Gulf oil.
As quoted by German defense minister Boris Pistorius:
“What does … Donald Trump expect a handful or two handfuls of European frigates to do in the Strait of Hormuz that the powerful U.S. Navy cannot do?” [1]
There is no country or coalition of countries that can do anything about this. They lack any meaningful military capabilities to stop Iran. What exactly is there to cooperate on? Iran is already sanctioned by the EU [2] for example. If we think it needs to be done, we just do it. It's not up to those who have no ability to do anything about it to decide whether we get to do something or not. I don't agree with how Trump has handled that aspect of the war, but the grandstanding and pearl clutching over a non-existent and not to come into existence coalition against Iran is mostly falling on deaf ears.
If it's purely about non-proliferation then partnering with Israel on this is extremely hypocritical.
> If we think it needs to be done, we just do it. It's not up to those who have no ability to do anything about it to decide whether we get to do something or not.
Says who? I don't think anyone outside of a small group of hyper-Imperialists actually believe this.
Even if I bought the premise that a war is preferable to the JCPOA, what's the actual end goal? Bombing Iran into submission was always a delusionary idea. Taking and occupying the country is the only realistic, long-term path if we want to go down this hardline path.
Do you think this war is (a) likely to convince Iran to not pursue nuclear weapons, or (b) convince Iran that nuclear weapons are a necessity for their continued existence? I'm pretty sure it's (b), and that between Russia's attack on Ukraine, and the US's attack on Iran, all it will do is convince the rest of the world that they absolutely need nuclear weapons.
Iran was already convinced that they needed to pursue nuclear weapons. They were still doing so under the JCPOA and even in cases where countries offered free, unlimited material for civilian nuclear reactors Iran refused. Why refuse? It's obvious.
They shouldn't have needed a JCPOA anyway - why was Iran pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place? The US didn't attack Iran in the early or mid-2000s, for example. Do we have a JCPOA style agreement with Brazil, or Thailand, or Italy? No. They just, as good faith partners in nuclear non-proliferation simply don't pursue nuclear weapons. Why is Iran different? Why does the rest of the world have to pay them to not pursue nuclear weapons?
I know. I think Trump should be in jail, particularly over Jan 6th. But he's currently the President and I'm not going to stoop to reality TV level analysis of global events just because I don't like the guy. If he does something that I think is good, then I think it's good. He doesn't dictate my political opinions. If he, or anyone else aligns with me, they're right. If they don't, respectfully, they're wrong. But I set those opinions and hold them.
Given what the US has been doing/threatening to do recently, it's hard to see this as a problem.
[flagged]
[dead]
Killing children is costly business.
Especially when you use smart weapons to try to minimize it from happening as collatoral damage (though that doesn't change the awefulness when a school seems to have wrongly been targeted, smart weapons are only as good as their target information).
It's much cheaper to just gun down 30,000 protestors in the street protesting that they don't want to be raped by Islamic religious morality police if they don't wear hats. Or to just fire missiles randomly at civilian areas such as the one that resulted in 11 year old Nesia Karadi dying today from the sever wounds she sustained from Iran's missiles fired into Israeli civilian areas.
We have a lot of videos of protests in Iran yet no videos of mass killings whatsoever.
30k murders is the same as Iraq’s WMD but people are too gullible to see that.
I see how smart those bombs are in Iran and Lebanon, they are able to surgically destroy whole buildings.
"A whole civilization will die tonight"
This is sort of a subtitle under the headline of unprovoked brutality and naked incompetence that brought us here.
One of the issues that came up when Russia invaded Ukraine was that Russia just didn't have the weapons they thought they did, particularly tanks. There's been a bunch of corruption where generals have pocketed funds and just kicked the can down the street.
The US now spends $1T+ a year on war and is asking for $1.5T next year. At least half of that is weapon systems. A lot of these are probably way too expensive and because of multiple suppliers, incredibly hard to scale up. For the missile interceptors, it may take 3-5 years. Logistically, imagine if there was way more standardization of parts so this was easier to scale? A bit like the missing Russian tanks, US military procurement is corrupt. We have the weapon systems we bought but we pay way too much. So we're basically paying $1T+ for a military that can't do anything about the Iranian military. The disparity is so large that one day of sustaining the war is a good part of what the Iranian military costs for a year.
Last year it was widely rumored that the 12 day war ended because the US and Israel were running out of missile interceptors. That's kind of why many didn't expect this war to happen because that shortage was never solved [1]. It's evidence that the US expected this to be a decapitation strike like Venezuela and for it to be over in a matter of days. This problem is reportedly dire [2].
But that was never going to happen and now the US has mired itself in a war it cannot end without a humiliating defeat and withdrawal.
We don't have exact figures because of censorship but it was estimated at the start of this that ~90% of missiles were being intercepted over Israel and now that figure was ~50% before the ceasefire. Ballistic missiles and drones in particular are cheaper to produce than their respective interceptors and can be produced in much higher volume. Launchers are cheap and easy to produce.
Another telling factor in all of this is the US military's continued use of so-called "standoff" weapons. This includes Tomahawk missiles as well as precision-guided muntiions from planes. You generally don't want to use these if you can because you sacrifice ordinance for fuel. So why do you do it? Because you don't have the air superiority you need.
Those weapons too are more expensive and slow to scale up production.
It's incredibly damaging to US interests too that they've been unable and/or unwilling to defend allies and their own bases in the Gulf.
What I hope comes out of this is some pushback on why exactly we're spending $1T (or $1.5T) a year and what exactly we're getting for that. It's an unimaginable amount of money that could otherwise do so much good. Yet instead we're acting like a belligerent yet still failing empire.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/world/middleeast/israel-s...
[2]: https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/israeli-missile-interceptors-...
> It's incredibly damaging to US interests too that they've been unable and/or unwilling to defend allies and their own bases in the Gulf.
The fact that the Gulf turned to Ukraine for protection is one of these strange turnouts one would never expect a few years ago.
It's all beginning to fit together a bit too neatly.
We've had 'China invades Taiwan in 2027' on the radar for a couple of years, and now Trump is disarming the US, and demonstrating it's impotence in certain areas, just in time.
I think we need a new script-writer.
You've got to set up the story beats beforehand, otherwise your viewers will complain that things show up out of nowhere.
The China invades Taiwan fearmongering is kinda silly for two main reasons:
1. Crossing 100 miles of ocean (between mainland China and Taiwan) may as well be 10,000 miles. It's essentially impassable.. Just look at Iran, where a country that has endured decades of sanctions is impossible to invade for the largest and most wel-funded military on Earth. In Iran, the logistics of a sea landing mirror the size and complexity of D-Day and we just don't have that military anymore. Neither does China.
China would have to land somewhere between 500k and 1M soldiers in Taiwan then supply them. They simply don't have that amphibious capability. And anyone who thinks they do just doesn't understand how complicated and extensive the logistics are. Vehicles, weapons, medical supplies, food, ammunition, repair facilities, etc etc etc.
China could blockade but invade? No. Which brings me to...
2. China has absolutely no need to invade Taiwan, strategically. All but 10 countries on Earth have the so-called One China policy, which is a recognition that Taiwan isn't an independent nation and is part of China. China thinks very long term and believes the situation will ultimately be resolved. It's the US who thinks very short-term and likes to invade without thinking of the consequences.
What would an invasion of Taiwan (if they could pull it off, which they can't) do to China's standing in the world, diplomatic and trade relations, etc? Think about Russia invading Ukraine. Suddenly Finland and Sweden abandon their neutrality and join NATO. The invasion has actually strengthened NATO.
Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't listen to the biggest arms dealer on Earth about what a military threat China is and how we need to expand the military and buy even more weapons.
> What would an invasion of Taiwan (if they could pull it off, which they can't) do to China's standing in the world, diplomatic and trade relations, etc? Think about Russia invading Ukraine. Suddenly Finland and Sweden abandon their neutrality and join NATO. The invasion has actually strengthened NATO.
This is especially true now, when the US is shooting itself in the foot over Iran, making China look like a rational and stable actor and the US like a chaotic and unreliable partner. There is no gain for China in forcibly taking over Taiwan, they will try to do it through other means over the next 10–20 years. They know that using force to take Taiwan would be the biggest gift they could give the US right now.
Spent billions on an unnecessary and ILLEGAL war that killed innocent people, American and allied soldiers, depleted your weapons, burned every ally you had in the world, created millions of enemies and potential terrorists, increased prices for your population, SO MUCH WINNING.
And we have not nearly seen the end of it!
Today I heard that the regime in the USA is considering PUNISHMENT for NATO allies for not joining the war that is just an excursion, even though they were not obligated to join or help, they also were not consulted or even informed in any way about the 'plans'.
And they weren't even needed, according to the clown that millions of easily manipulated Americans voted for.
I feel nothing but disgust for that country right now.
Respect has to be earned.
[flagged]
If you assume that war with China is on the horizon, it's arguable that this is a good thing for the US to see weaknesses exposed now while there is still something to do about it. Even if that war (and I hope it's not) is not on the horizon, real battlefield testing in what is becoming a new battlefield of drones and smaller missiles/weapons is necessary and highly valuable. Contrast that with, for example, China who has yet to demonstrate its combined arms ability, and its soldiers and equipment have yet to be tested in any meaningful way. There's a lot of value in battlefield experience - Ukraine itself is a great example.
Although the war in Iran is very obviously justified, I am writing here a bit more broadly about some of the trade-offs for the military. Our defense industrial base has become sophisticated, expensive, and slow because we would increasingly get sold more "advanced" weapons. That's great when you are facing an enemy like Iran without an ability to really fight back, but in a war with a peer state you need more munitions faster and cheaper. Industrial production is key, else you become quickly exhausted.
> Although the war in Iran is very obviously justified,
Wait, what now?
Can't have another North Korea sitting in the Middle East with control over so much oil supply. Don't want Gulf States to go and get nuclear weapons in response to Iran getting them (nuclear non-proliferation).
That's not the justification for the current war; the White House [0] claims that Iran's nuclear capabilities were 'obliterated' last year.
[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/06/experts-agree-ir...
I'm not justifying the war on White House press releases. The additional justifications though just strengthen the need.
Separately it's a poor argument to say well Iran's nuclear capabilities were obliterated (they were certainly damaged if nothing else) therefore further attacks are unjustified when Iran could build up missile defense, missile attack, and drone capabilities and make a future incursion to stop their nuclear program impossible without extreme destruction to the Middle East and the rest of global trade.
Which, you know, was what they were actually doing. Hence the missile attacks. We just caught them before we couldn't actually do much about it without significant loss of life and equipment.
Keep in mind that there's only a risk of Iran gaining nuclear weapons in the first place because Trump in his first term reneged on the deal where we had inspectors in Iran to ensure they weren't making them.
Random, unprovoked attacks by other countries only underscores Iran's need to build nuclear weapons. Mission accomplished.
This is false because Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon before Trump ever came into office. the JCPOA was signed under Obama. It wouldn't have existed had Iran not already been pursuing nuclear weapons.
Iran can obviously hide nuclear weapons and uranium enrichment activities from the inspectors. Unless of course you believe the US intelligence agency and inspection agencies are capable of perfect intelligence. :)
> Random, unprovoked attacks by other countries only underscores Iran's need to build nuclear weapons. Mission accomplished.
Doesn't make sense. You're ignoring Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and other geostrategic concerns. Even if Iran wasn't trying to build a nuclear weapon they were stockpiling missiles such that they could seize control over the Straight of Hormuz and ensure tolls were paid to their autocratic regime. It's beyond bizarre to me that someone can, presumably in an honest way, think that this war just randomly started and was unprovoked. Incompatible world views.
More like you are ignoring the US' prodigious client in the region running amok.
Iran and a large part of the top religious leaders in Shia Islam (who also run Iran a strict Islamic state) have called for the death and destruction of me and my country for my entire life. Iran has spent billions working towards that end and funded multiples of the suffering that occurred in Gaza (such as the war in Yemen. Heck Iran provided the funding that enabled Oct 7th ultimately resulting in Israel taking action in Gaza making Iran in part responsible for Gaza's horrific suffering as well).
In my lived experience, Iran and by extension Shia Islam (as it is very senior Shia Islam leaders making religious proclamations/justifications declaring it) has been at war with my country my entire life and sponsored random attacks against Americans and also non-Americans out of the hopes of weakening the US to promote their 45+ year vocally stated goal of the death/destruction of my country. They have ordered hits around the world on people that wrong speak about Islam such as Rushdie. And they kidnap/rape/murder little girls in their nation if they don't wear the proper hats. These are Islamist religious fanatics intent on reshaping the world to match Shia Islams world view. Their 'moderates' ordered 30,000 of their own people gunned down in the streets, then went to hospitals and murdered nurses and doctors that treated injured civilians. That is the 'moderate' position in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The JCPOA was very effective until Trump cancelled it without any consolations and upped sanctions for no reasons (Iran was cooperating!)
The progress of their enrichment program is purely a product of this administration's failed diplomacy.
Comparing Iran to North Korea is something someone with no actual understanding of Iran would do. Iran is not a hermit kingdom.
> Comparing Iran to North Korea is something someone with no actual understanding of Iran would do. Iran is not a hermit kingdom.
That was your comparison, not mine. My comparison was that once they obtain a nuclear weapon, there's nothing we can do anymore. They can obtain more, and then use them as a threat to tax the Straight, further enriching their regime, &c. That's what has happened to North Korea (minus the strategic position and of course it's slightly different due to China).
The JCPOA wasn't effective for two reasons:
1. We weren't getting the cooperation we needed in the first place to examine nuclear sites.
2. We shouldn't have to pay off Iran to not get nuclear weapons. Why do they get to be treated differently than any other country?
Those JCPOA concerns are pure Fox New lore:
1. We had anytime/anywhere access to their nuclear facilities and 24 day access to any square inch of their country. They never violated that part of the agreement and it's also silly to think intelligence didn't already know where all the facilities were.
2. The payments were a trivial part of the deal. It's especially ironic given this administration keeps offering payments to end the current conflict.
The reality is any deal we sign today is going to be substantially worse in every way for us than the JCPOA was.
> Why do they get to be treated differently than any other country?
This is the crux of the thing though. North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, and even South Africa all had successful and clandestine nuclear programs without any military intervention. Going to war with Iran is completely arbitrary - there is no direct threat to the US, and we did it without any cooperation with any of the countries actually dependent on Gulf oil.
> This is the crux of the thing though. North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, and even South Africa all had successful and clandestine nuclear programs without any military intervention. Going to war with Iran is completely arbitrary - there is no direct threat to the US, and we did it without any cooperation with any of the countries actually dependent on Gulf oil.
Or maybe we just learned our lesson. Is the world better for each of those countries having nuclear weapons? I think not. Why permit yet another one to join the club? Why does Iran get special treatment? Do we need a JCPOA with all other countries, to pay them off as well to not get nuclear weapons? If you are in favor of nuclear non-proliferation you have to become a circus star to be able to jump through all of the contradictory hoops needed to justify somehow giving Iran special treatment or suggesting it's ok for them to have a nuclear bomb.
Calling the war completely arbitrary is intellectually dishonest and pointless in a discussion.
> and we did it without any cooperation with any of the countries actually dependent on Gulf oil.
As quoted by German defense minister Boris Pistorius:
“What does … Donald Trump expect a handful or two handfuls of European frigates to do in the Strait of Hormuz that the powerful U.S. Navy cannot do?” [1]
There is no country or coalition of countries that can do anything about this. They lack any meaningful military capabilities to stop Iran. What exactly is there to cooperate on? Iran is already sanctioned by the EU [2] for example. If we think it needs to be done, we just do it. It's not up to those who have no ability to do anything about it to decide whether we get to do something or not. I don't agree with how Trump has handled that aspect of the war, but the grandstanding and pearl clutching over a non-existent and not to come into existence coalition against Iran is mostly falling on deaf ears.
[1] https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5786066-trump-allies-stra...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/too-early-talk-abo...
If it's purely about non-proliferation then partnering with Israel on this is extremely hypocritical.
> If we think it needs to be done, we just do it. It's not up to those who have no ability to do anything about it to decide whether we get to do something or not.
Says who? I don't think anyone outside of a small group of hyper-Imperialists actually believe this.
Even if I bought the premise that a war is preferable to the JCPOA, what's the actual end goal? Bombing Iran into submission was always a delusionary idea. Taking and occupying the country is the only realistic, long-term path if we want to go down this hardline path.
Do you think this war is (a) likely to convince Iran to not pursue nuclear weapons, or (b) convince Iran that nuclear weapons are a necessity for their continued existence? I'm pretty sure it's (b), and that between Russia's attack on Ukraine, and the US's attack on Iran, all it will do is convince the rest of the world that they absolutely need nuclear weapons.
Iran was already convinced that they needed to pursue nuclear weapons. They were still doing so under the JCPOA and even in cases where countries offered free, unlimited material for civilian nuclear reactors Iran refused. Why refuse? It's obvious.
They shouldn't have needed a JCPOA anyway - why was Iran pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place? The US didn't attack Iran in the early or mid-2000s, for example. Do we have a JCPOA style agreement with Brazil, or Thailand, or Italy? No. They just, as good faith partners in nuclear non-proliferation simply don't pursue nuclear weapons. Why is Iran different? Why does the rest of the world have to pay them to not pursue nuclear weapons?
> They shouldn't have needed a JCPOA anyway - why was Iran pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place?
This current war is why.
We wouldn't have a war if Iran wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons. It's post-hoc justification.
The JCPOA excuse can quietly and safely be discarded. It's a bad argument.
> We wouldn't have a war if Iran wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons. It's post-hoc justification.
And you feel this war is going to get them to stop?
Nowhere near as bad as the question-begging premise your comment leads with.
[flagged]
I know. I think Trump should be in jail, particularly over Jan 6th. But he's currently the President and I'm not going to stoop to reality TV level analysis of global events just because I don't like the guy. If he does something that I think is good, then I think it's good. He doesn't dictate my political opinions. If he, or anyone else aligns with me, they're right. If they don't, respectfully, they're wrong. But I set those opinions and hold them.
> Trump could say we all should get more exercise and folks would say somehow exercise is bad for you.
No I’d say he’s a fat hypocrite lol.
Nothing more ironic then fat dementia patients trying to lecture you on health. Or junkies, or Turkish pill hucksters.
"Trump says XYZ so XYZ is bad!!!"
That might have to do with the fact that Trump is a conniving, deceitful, lying piece of shit? Just maybe.