Public sentiment on Iran's nuclear developments presents a divided perspective. While many express skepticism towards Western nations and the IAEA, citing perceived double standards and recalling historical precedents like Iraq's WMD claims, there is also significant support for Iran's right to self-defense and nuclear development. Criticism of Western interference and distrust in international narratives are prevalent, with support for Iran often rooted in opposition to perceived global hypocrisy. Conversely, there is substantial concern about Iran's nuclear capabilities becoming a global threat, particularly to Israel, with demands for preventative measures and frustration towards the US, especially the Trump administration, for its role in escalating tensions. Religious and emotional support for Israel further amplifies this narrative.

Iran

IAEA

United States

Israel

They spent two decades building up proxies and influence, just for most of it to collapse in about two months.

I'd say they're reevaluating their strategy and buffing themselves up for any potential direct conflict.

AgitatedHoneydew2645

Iran has significantly increased its uranium enrichment to 60% purity, a level approaching weapons-grade, and is now producing up to 34 kg monthly, which could lead to the capability of manufacturing more than a dozen nuclear weapons if further enriched. The move has drawn international condemnation, with the US intelligence report highlighting Iran's improved infrastructure and potential intent to develop nuclear weapons, despite Tehran's denials. Diplomatic efforts to address the issue have stalled, and the escalation has heightened tensions, with Western nations viewing it as a major threat to global security.

Active_Ear_2177

This is the only thing that would protect Iran against US or Israeli attacks, but I'm not even sure both sides would respect it or allow it to happen. Trump has plenty of people around him who view Iran as a threat and they would want to switch to China after dealing with it. Don't forget Iran tried to kill Trump, hacked his campaign group emails and more. I would not put it past Trump to act and force Iran to the table. Iran proxy groups lay in ruin only ones that still stand are the Houthis. So they would have good reason to fold now. That would save the regime but destroy their hard-earned reputation.

JustAhobbyish

They are dogged, I’ll give the mullahs that. But I find it hard to believe that it’ll happen, given the massive effort of the Israeli military intelligence into infiltrating Iran. That facility will absolutely be found out and destroyed. It is an existential threat to Israel, who has decidedly neutralized every existential threat it has faced so far. They are arguably more powerful than they’ve ever been.

KosstAmojan

Weekly reminder.

Seen this about 200 times in the last 10 years.

RoIIerBaII

Just a reminder. While it might be true that no one has enriched uranium to such a degree without building nuclear weapons the nuclear reactors of US  and UK submarines also use highly enriched fuel (Wikipedia is talking about 93% purity). 

Since as part of Aukus they (UK and USA) plan to sell submarines using such reactors (and their fuel) to a non nuclear armed country (Australia) these three countries (and by association their allies) obviously do not see simply acquiring highly enriched nuclear fuel as being against the NPT. Otherwise they themselves would openly violate it. 

So while it would be best to stop Iran from getting such fuel it is difficult to find a legal justification for attacking them just because they produce it. Them producing it to my knowledge does not violate any active international treaty. The one it might have violated was the one Trump ended during his last presidency.

ICEpear8472

They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by not making nuclear weapons right now.

Mobile_Society_8458

Israel might first strike before allowing Iran nuclear capability.

MeatPiston

Looking at how it is, this is the only logical conclusion.

64-17-5

Unfortunately, I pretty much predicted this when Trump was elected (as well as the Republicans taking both the House / Senate), which would pose one of the biggest threats that their authoritarian regime has seen in a while, maybe ever. I expected a near-certainty that they would use the 2.5 months from election date to inauguration to get as far as possible in nuclear bomb production, if not outright completing some nuclear weapons...Hopefully, that isn't correct.

john2557

How significant? There's an article every month on "significant" Iranian progress. Keeping the story in the news cycle is probably the most significant achievement in itself. 

Magicalsandwichpress

If I were iran, I would just ask russia for a nuke and send them my soldiers and missiles

Mysterious-Fix2896

bleedingjim

I don’t understand the strategy. To deliver nukes, they need either air force or ballistic missiles. But the threat makes the missile and air infrastructure a target, thus it’s not enough to produce nukes, they also have to develop a massive defence system. Their current defence system was heavily damaged on the western half of the country by Israel. So what is behind pushing forward the nuclear program?

a) we in the “west” are living in a bubble, and Hamas, Hezbollah, Syrian regime have still a potential force, Houthis are still a threat to the international trade, Russia is actually winning in Ukraine, so Iran now can neglect the Western concerns and finish it’s nuclear program.

b) Iran only needs a bargaining chip. But in this case the real threat is that a regime, over which there is no domestic civil control, and which is backing terrorist groups, can hand out nuclear devices  to unpredictable morons. This makes Iran a top tier threat, in a moment where Iran’s defence capability was severely damaged by two well prepared Israeli air strikes. What is the Iranian regime expecting? Given the US election results?

c) Is this piece of news an intelligence operation to pull the strings and see the enemy’s reaction? But again, the trench lines are quite articulated by now. Are they testing China maybe?

pityutanarur

APisaride

Good for them. They’re still in the NPT and Israel isn’t. Not America’s problem.

Deleted_Account_427


As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. 

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

 For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
 
 We are actively looking for new moderators.  If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
 

***


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

There is no bigger threat to the world right now than Donnie Dipshit.

oculeers

It sure would be nice if we had a deal with Iran to not make nuclear weapons.  Yup, that would have been nice.

kia75

I'm more worried about the completely unhinged ego maniac running this country and his access to nukes

deschain_19195

Much more worried than before Trump wrecked the JCPOA.

MJcorrieviewer

Sorry, I can't hear you over Donald Trump shitting on the entire planet in new and interesting ways every five minutes.

robot-rob

LessThanSimple

This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -&gt; custom -&gt; "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls)

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Who needs Iran when US is doing a great job self destructing all by itself

Trillion_2233

At this point we should probably be welcoming it.

[deleted]

A lot cause the trump administration policy is to escalate this till it's nuclear war.

drackcove

The US is engaging in direct talks with Iran over its [nuclear capabilities](https://inews.co.uk/news/world/iran-nuclear-efforts-scale-up-gaza-ceasefire-3484071?srsltid=AfmBOortkI6UkYKgxSiaNQvnAxVCEI4VJ6QncSuPCZFa7sseNpA2-phF&amp;ico=in-line_link), with Donald Trump touting a “big meeting” this weekend.

[Trump](https://inews.co.uk/news/how-bad-trump-tariffs-3628453?srsltid=AfmBOoq88fX7dDHt4bQ6oR1Mv0ZuWOHiboxK8Jvz_9jUA-nOtk7e5Yvt&amp;ico=in-line_link) said that Iran “can’t have a nuclear weapon”, and that would be “trouble” if the talks do not bear fruit.

But what might be on the table during the talks – and how concerned should we be about Iran’s nuclear capabilities?

# No bomb yet – but there could be soon

Iran has said its nuclear programme “only serves peaceful purposes” and that “nuclear weapons have no place in our doctrine”.

Whether or not this is true, Iran almost certainly does not yet have nuclear weapons, according to the intelligence company Janes, so its immediate nuclear threat to other countries today is “minimal.”

However, it does have some of the capabilities needed to create a bomb, including the ballistic missiles that could theoretically be used to carry nuclear warheads, and uranium supplies.

theipaper

&gt; The Trump administration is proposing an arrangement that would allow Iran to continue enriching uranium at low levels while the United States and other countries work out a more detailed plan intended to block Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon but give it access to fuel for new nuclear power plants.
&gt; 
&gt; The proposal amounts to a bridge between the current situation, in which Iran is rapidly producing near-bomb-grade uranium, and the U.S. goal of Iran enriching no uranium at all on its soil.
&gt; 
&gt; Under the proposal, the United States would facilitate the building of nuclear power reactors for Iran and negotiate the construction of enrichment facilities managed by a consortium of regional countries. Once Iran began receiving any benefits from those promises, it would have to stop all enrichment in the country.
&gt; 
&gt; The outline of the potential deal, which was described on the condition of anonymity by Iranian and European officials, was handed to Iran over the weekend. Officials in Tehran indicated on Monday that a response would come in several days.
&gt; 
&gt; It is the first concrete indication since President Trump took office that the United States and Iran might be able to find a path to compromise that would head off a potential regional war over Tehran’s ambitions to build a nuclear weapon.
&gt; 
&gt; But the details remain vague, the two sides remain far apart on many elements of a deal, and the domestic politics for both are complex. In his first term, Mr. Trump canceled an agreement negotiated under President Barack Obama that had similarly sought to keep Iran from being able to produce a nuclear bomb.
&gt; 
&gt; At least in the opening years of the proposed arrangement, when new enrichment facilities to produce fuel for power plants are being built in cooperation with Arab states, Iran would be allowed to continue enriching uranium at low levels, despite Mr. Trump’s post on social media on Monday saying the United States would “not allow any enrichment of uranium.” (It is possible that he was referring to what would be allowed at the concluding stage of the potential deal rather than during an interim arrangement.)
&gt; 
&gt; The idea of a regional consortium would essentially wrap Iran in a bearhug with countries that might include the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and others, allowing the production of low-grade nuclear fuel for power plants while seeking to ensure that Iran is not enriching fuel on its own for a bomb.
&gt; 
&gt; But one key unresolved question is whether Iran’s leadership will agree to an ultimate arrangement in which no nuclear fuel is produced on Iranian soil. “We do not need anyone’s permission to enrich uranium,” Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said on Tuesday.
&gt; 
&gt; Israel has also been deeply skeptical of any deal that would leave Iran with nuclear capabilities. It has repeatedly suggested that now is the time for a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, citing Tehran’s degraded air defense systems and the weakness of its regional allies Hamas and Hezbollah.
&gt; 
&gt; Iran, however, still possesses a formidable arsenal of conventional weapons, including ballistic missiles, capable of threatening Israel, Gulf neighbors and U.S. bases in the region.
&gt; 
&gt; Iranian officials have warned that in the event of a military strike on their nuclear facilities, they would respond forcefully, exit the nonproliferation agreement and end international inspectors’ access to sites.
&gt; 
&gt; The wording of the new proposal, crafted by Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, is vaguely worded on many of the most important issues, suggesting that considerable negotiating lies ahead, Iranian and European officials said.
&gt; 
&gt; For example, it is unclear that the accord meets the standard Mr. Trump said last week that he would demand, an agreement where “we can take whatever we want, we can blow up whatever we want.” Senior Iranian officials involved in the negotiations called the bombastic statement “a fantasy.”
&gt; 
&gt; Mr. Araghchi said on Monday at the sideline of meetings in Egypt with officials that Iran would “soon send America an appropriate response. Without respecting our right to enrich uranium, there will be no agreement.”
&gt; 
&gt; He added that he was confident of a diplomatic breakthrough to avert further crises.
&gt; 
&gt; Some details of the proposal were reported earlier by Axios.
&gt; 
&gt; Asked about Mr. Witkoff’s outline, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said on Monday that “President Trump has made it clear that Iran can never obtain a nuclear bomb.”
&gt; 
&gt; In a statement to The New York Times, she added: “Special Envoy Witkoff has sent a detailed and acceptable proposal to the Iranian regime, and it’s in their best interest to accept it. Out of respect for the ongoing deal, the administration will not comment on details of the proposal to the media.”
&gt; 
&gt; Any breakthrough would be a diplomatic victory for Mr. Trump, whose efforts to negotiate a cease-fire in the Russia-Ukraine war have floundered. His diplomacy with Iran has also been unexpected: After pulling out of the Obama-era nuclear agreement, he ordered the killing in early 2020 of one of Iran’s highest-ranking generals. Iran, in return, has been accused by U.S. officials of hiring assassins to kill Mr. Trump during his 2024 presidential campaign. Iran has denied the allegations.
&gt; 
&gt; The Trump administration’s proposal, according to two Iranian officials, leaves unclear exactly what would be required in dismantling the country’s nuclear program.
&gt; 
&gt; Iran has invested billions of dollars in building its two main nuclear facilities, Natanz and Fordow, and in developing its advanced nuclear program, which it considers a source of national pride. Shuttering the facilities would be humiliating and difficult to justify, according to an Iranian official familiar with the internal deliberations.
&gt; 
&gt; These facilities also employ hundreds of scientists, some of the country’s most talented, and the government worries that many of the top ones may leave Iran if they are unemployed and waiting for the new consortium to take shape, an Iranian official said. Over the years, Israel has targeted and assassinated a number of leading nuclear scientists, including Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.
&gt; 
&gt; The proposal did not specify which of the hundreds of sanctions against Iran would be removed in any final deal. Iran has told the United States that all sanctions would need to be removed in order to sign a deal — not just those related to its nuclear program.
&gt; 
&gt; Iranian officials said they would not take any measures curbing their program without parallel sanctions relief, particularly diluting or exporting the huge stockpile of enriched uranium that the United Nations’ atomic watchdog says allows them to build 10 bombs if they chose to weaponize.
&gt; 
&gt; The United States has sanctioned Iran’s oil sales and banking transactions over the years, stifling the country’s economy for advancing its nuclear program, supporting terrorism, helping Russia in the Ukraine war, plotting assassinations of Western officials and perpetuating human rights abuses.
&gt; 
&gt; Iranian officials said they did not trust Mr. Trump because of his unilateral exiting of the Obama-era nuclear deal and conflicting comments from American officials during negotiations in the past few weeks. The officials said one of the issues being debated in Tehran was what guarantees Washington would provide that Mr. Trump or his successors would not force Iran out of the consortium in the future.
&gt; 
&gt; While the outcome of the negotiation remains unclear, Mr. Witkoff’s strategy is beginning to emerge.
&gt; 
&gt; The consortium he proposed would provide nuclear fuel for Iran and any of its neighbors interested in developing civilian nuclear power or research programs. The many players would watch one another — and they would be watched by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. group that monitors nuclear fuel around the world and is supposed to send alarms if it believes the fuel is being diverted to a weapons program.
&gt; 
&gt; But the proposal does not make clear exactly where the enrichment facility would be located, though the United States has said it cannot be in Iran. Iranian officials continue to insist it must be in their territory, because they would not give up their right to enrich nuclear fuel under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
&gt; 
&gt; Iran is a signatory to the treaty, though so far it has not ratified an addendum, called the Additional Protocol, that would give inspectors much greater rights to search any part of the country where they suspect nuclear activity.
&gt; 
&gt; Although it was not noted in the U.S. proposal, Omani and Saudi officials have discussed the idea of building an enrichment facility on an island in the Persian Gulf. This would potentially give both sides a talking point: The Iranians would be able to say they are still enriching uranium, and the Americans could state that enrichment is not happening on Iranian soil.
&gt; 
&gt; Two Iranian officials said the country was open to accepting the consortium idea because the government did not want talks to fail. But the Iranian officials said negotiators planned to bargain in the next round of talks for the island to be one of their own: They may propose Kish or Qeshm in the Persian Gulf, though other possibilities have been discussed.
&gt;

HaLoGuY007

Iran is definitely not an ally. Even you can't expect anything from saudia and other gulf countries.

Antique_Ad_2902

Iran is not an ally. US is going to attack Iran soon.

mrsnowb0t

No country can be relied on, because these countries cannot rely on Pakistan either. India is Iran's trading partner defying some USA sanctions, while Pakistan does not. Remember the pipeline deal?

FisterHard20

Born too early to deploy to the Middle East, born too late to deploy to the Middle East…

Born just in time to deploy to the Middle East. 

Joke is still relevant as hell and strong as ever.

CO-RockyMountainHigh

Man, some day a crazy person will use one just to see the world burn. Not looking forward to such an event, but am wondering If something like that might happen in our lifetime.

Do_itsch

I had to read this twice, was skimming and thought I saw IKEA chief.

M-Kawai

What can go wrong with radical religion and a nuclear bomb?

Signal_Bird_9097

Ancient hatred mixed with modern weapons is always a great mix.

I don't think people realize the gravity here.  Imagine if ISIS had a nuclear weapon.

Edit:  in response to Iran is not ISIS.  OK,  which of these things occurs in Iran or ISIS governed areas: 

Beating women to death over clothing.  

Gay sex punishable by death.  

Torture prisons.  

Committed to the total destruction of Israel.

Adultery punishable by death.

Apostasy death.

Blasphemy death.

Political dissonance death.

Public executions of hundreds of people as year.

Makes and distributes military aid to terrorist organizations.

Answer: Iran

Not a fan of mixing extremist religion ideology and nukes.

IkeKaveladze

Iran has lied about its nuclear intentions from day one, many world leaders have been misled, bribed, or are delusional about Iran and other Axies intents. Not a surprise.

Zerosumendgame2022

I hope Iran sticks some "I did that stickers" of trump on the bomb once it's done.

mrubuto22

Preventative measures need to be taken on this. From my limited knowledge of technology needed to reach their facilities, the US will need to assist Israel in taking this out. Iran *cannot* have a nuclear bomb. There is such a high chance they use the weapon on Israel. Take it out before its possible.

YesItIsAnAltAcc

Thanks to Trump torpedoing the deal because it was made by Obama

nim_opet

Well of course the JCPOA is no longer relevant. Trump pulled us out in 2018 without putting anything else in place.

syynapt1k

ladyreadingabook

Iran having nuclear weapons might be the worse thing that could ever happen.

Stinkfist-73

It wasn't relevant since trump canceled it.

homebrew_1

I wonder why? If only we had stayed in the nuclear agreement so we could monitor their program…

But that was an Obama accomplishment, so of course we had to pull out. 🙄

Hobohemia_

Contenders for the end of civilization:

* Nukes;

* Rogue AI;

* Super Virus;

I'd take bets, but nobody getting a payout.

krozarEQ

You mean the deal Trump left? Making Iran and the EU try to make something out of it with Iran (obviously) slowly building up their capabilities to show they were serious? But slow-walking it so a deal could have actually been re-made, but on worse terms for the west?
That deal?

Runesen

Huh. Who was it that reneged on that deal? What country would be that stupid. *checks notes*

Ohhhh.

Widespreaddd

They been “close to bomb” for years now.

fitnessCTanesthesia

&amp; we have Donald F'n Trump about to take office and be the one to handle this shit show.

Cant wait.

CreepyOlGuy

I've heard it all before:

- [US accuses Iran of secret nuclear weapons plan](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/dec/14/iraq.iran) : December 14th, 2002

- [Nuke agency report: Iran can make bomb](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32898772) : September 17th, 2009

- [New report says Iran can have nuclear bomb in a month](https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-report-says-iran-can-have-nuclear-bomb-in-a-month/) : October 25th, 2013

- [Iran probably already has nuclear weapons](https://mackenzieinstitute.com/2019/09/we-assessiran-probably-already-has-nuclear-weapons/) : September 25th, 2019

- [Iran has enough enriched uraniam to build ‘several’ nuclear weapons, UN says](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/iran-could-build-several-nuclear-weapons-un-says) : January 26th, 2023

Imminent_Extinction

Why is it no longer relevant? Oh right because Trump pulled out of it 8 years ago.

I thought the 2015 deal was scrapped?  

Edit: never mind, I guess the US left it but did it stay in place with other countries? https://apnews.com/article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-politics-iran-cead755353a1455bbef08ef289448994

MovieGuyMike

No worries, there's a reason why the new Bond movie is being delayed.

ArdDC

TheTanadu

This is just priming everyone for the US and Israel to have a decent crack at the Iran regime in the not too distant future.

Affectionate-Yak5280

That's been that case for a while now ever since the guy got blown up by Trump.

olleversun

Good think Trump scrapped that deal 8 years ago…

Lucas20633

Where's all the Trump "I did this" stickers at?

ieatthosedownvotes

Trump withdrew from this deal. Ever since then they have been enriching. 

Why the fuck do we live in such a post-truth world that this isn't common knowledge? The idea that Trump is the "tough on Iran" guy when he's essentially their nuclear weapons architect at this point is hilarious

JandalfTheJrey

Trump's going for the repeat from last time.

titanjumka

Viliam_the_Vurst

Maybe everyone should have thought about that when Trump axed the deal

eldenpotato

Recent reports highlight escalating tensions between Iran and Western nations over Iran's nuclear activities. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) expressed concerns about Iran's significant increase in uranium enrichment to near weapons-grade levels and alleged past military tests relevant to nuclear weapons development.

Iran Nuclear Developments and IAEA Tensions

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want