Should the West accept Iran's nuclear program?

[ag]

I sure don't want Iran (or, for that matter, anybody else in that region, including Israel) to have nukes. But there is a difference between wanting it and acknowledging that it will happen with near certainty. There is pretty much nothing that can be done about it that is not worse than letting Iran get away w/ it.

[Dr. Cynic]

The point of progress should be leaning more towards stopping nuclear proliferation, not encouraging it.

[dead0man]

Iran is right between Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Pakistan has allowed the U.S. military pretty free reign in their territory, and we toppled Iraq and Afghanistan's government. They are literally surrounded by the U.S. military.

Can you imagine why they might want a nuclear deterrent?

Maybe if we hadn't made it a habit of toppling so many countries, they wouldn't be looking to North Korea for an example of how to properly defend themselves.

I wish there were no nuclear weapons. But as long as we're invading countries left and right, and have more than enough nukes to kill everyone in the world many times over, how can we be surprised that other countries might want to get into the nuke game to protect themselves from invasion?

Iran's government has already toppled by the U.S. and Britain once. They know we're building up to war with them, it's obvious. They're going to try to protect themselves, because we're going to try to destroy them.

Libya showed what happens when you give up your nukes.

Israel on the other hand, shows what happens when you have nukes. Even if everyone hates you, no one can fux with you.

The wheels are already set in motion, they will get a nuke if they want one.

Or it's all B.S. like Iraq.

But if they thought that we were going to destroy them, why do they (or you) think that building a nuke would make them safe since that is the very act that we would use as a reason to invade.  They don't have a nuke now, we're not invading now.  I understand why they may be scared of us, they are belligerent asshats who constantly fund terrorism against us, but I don't see how building nukes is going to make them feel any safer since the act of building nukes makes the rest of us a bit more worried.  It's almost like they WANT to be invaded or don't think that we would under any circumstance, one of the two.

[Jacobtm]

But if they thought that we were going to destroy them, why do they (or you) think that building a nuke would make them safe since that is the very act that we would use as a reason to invade.  They don't have a nuke now, we're not invading now.  I understand why they may be scared of us, they are belligerent asshats who constantly fund terrorism against us, but I don't see how building nukes is going to make them feel any safer since the act of building nukes makes the rest of us a bit more worried.  It's almost like they WANT to be invaded or don't think that we would under any circumstance, one of the two.

Well, assuming they are in fact trying for a nuke, (which I don't 100% believe), the idea seems simple:

If they can actually get a nuke, we'd never invade.

I imagine they're hoping to pull it off sooner rather than later, under the radar, so that they can beat us to the punch, and be nuclear before we fully build up to invasion.

It is also possible that they aren't even pursuing a nuke. We were all so sure that Iraq was pursuing nukes before we invaded.

[dead0man]

Even the Russians know they are working towards weapons, and they should know (and to steal a stupid joke from about 8 years ago) , they have the receipt (der her).  Of course that will just feed your conspiracy.

[Jacobtm]

So you believe the Russians? Not like they're ever dishonest...

Not that it would surprise me if the Iranians are looking for a nuke. But the opposite wouldn't surprise me either.

Why do you throw around the word ''conspiracy'' as a way to dismiss the idea that we might be inventing the same BS about Iran that we invented about Iraq, like it's some impossible idea? It was only 8 years ago, and we only ''ended'' that terrible war weeks ago.

[Хahar 🤔]

Why is this something that is up to the West to accept or deny?

[dead0man]

Why is this something that is up to the West to accept or deny?

Good, point, the theoretical nukes are much less of a danger to the West than they are to the Sunnis and Jews within a few thousand miles of Iran.  It really is their problem.  Obviously Omaha, San Francisco, Dublin and New York are not on any Iranian target list.  If the invasion happens, I wouldn't mind if S.Arabia or Israel took the lead and the US played more of a support role.  Hell, I'd prefer it.  Maybe that's why that S.Arabian order of F15s last month was so freaking big?

[Jacobtm]

What's at risk isn't Israel or other neighboring states.

It's the U.S.'s dominance in the region, supported by Israel, the only current nuclear power this side of Pakistan.

That is what is being fought over.

[Хahar 🤔]

I can understand Israel, but how is Saudi Arabia preferable to Iran?

[Jacobtm]

I can understand Israel, but how is Saudi Arabia preferable to Iran?

Which one is under our thumb?

Notably, from friends who've travelld through the region, Iran seems to be more ''free'' from a ''man on the street'' perspective. I have female friends who still travel to see family in Iran. At least they can show their face in the streets.

[phk]

Since when did deadman become such an advocate for Sunnis?

[Beet]

Why is this something that is up to the West to accept or deny?

It's not "up to" anyone to do anything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pretty much this one.

[The Mikado]

You must be logged in to read this quote.