Public sentiment is significantly polarized regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions and its relationship with Israel. While some commenters express a clear desire for peace and assert Iran's right to self-defense, others voice strong support for Israel, reflecting deep frustrations over military tensions and perceived double standards in international nuclear policy. A majority of users are concerned about the implications of Iran potentially acquiring nuclear weapons, complicating the outlook with fears of escalation in regional conflicts.

Iran

Israel

United States

You take hours to answer. You have to go do research. Barrett, you're over invested in this and you are given to hyperbole and invention. 

The US took over. Ok. I'd like to see another revolution in Iran and oust the Islamic regime, replaced by a secular republic. I ask you given that one corrupt supreme leader was ousted and replaced by another corrupt supreme leader, what do you think could emerge if the Islamic tyranny is overthrown ?

trodatshtawy

If only Israel had prevented Pakistan and North Korea from getting nukes too.

HeyPurityItsMeAgain

Did you know that for 31 years Israel and Iran had a cordial and cooperative relationship? What do you think happened to change  that?

Theme from Jeopardy....................

And what's your answer charming_contest?

Same reason you don't allow children to handle machine guns and grenades.

Boazmcding

The regime in Iran has set itself the goal of destroying Israel. Their future plans have recently been revealed, not to mention all their branches, the terrorist organizations around Israel. Such a country with such a regime must not have nuclear weapons and Israel will never allow this. In doing so, it does a favor not only to other countries, but also to the Persian public itself, which has suffered from the cruel regime for decades and longs to be free from them.

Wonderful_House_4048

Iran regime is completely crazy: it's a Islamist government who oppressed their people and supports Hamas, Hezbollah and Houtih. They hate Israel, hate USA, hate Europe... I'm an European and even if I despise Netanyahu and his far-right government, they are no a threat to my continent, unlike Iran and the global Jihadist movement. 

We tried to appease Russia with economic and diplomatic treaties. As a result, Putin saw us a weak and invaded Ukraine. With authoritarian regimes, you have to be stronger, not more diplomatic. I mean, you really believe that Iran will respect a nuclear treaty?

QualitySufficient170

Because only the good are allowed to have. Israel and the West are the good and allow to do and have what they want, Iran is bad and is not allowed to have anything.

MayJare

Radical Jihadis that blow themselves up for Allah should not be anywhere near nuclear weapons.

U8abni812

&gt;The excuse of Iran using it on Israel is dumb thats mutually assured destruction, you see north Korea saying “Death to capitalism!” And yet they don’t strike south Korea or Japan with a nuke cause that would instantly drag out a response out of America

Iran is led by a dictatorial, religious regime. Not using nukes is reasonable, but that alone kinda throws reason out of the window.

That being said, it does make sense for Iran to attempt to obtain weapons, but it also makes sense for Israel to not want that. The fewer nations have nukes, the better for all other nations. Israel shouldn't have nukes. Russia shouldn't have nukes. NK shouldn't have nukes, but we live in a world where they are already introduced. All we can do is limit their availability.

Excellent-Berry-2331

A nuclear weapon in this context is not just a deterrent, as it becomes a shield behind which Iran can act more aggressively without fear of retaliation. This is a regime that is not only Authoriarian, but exapnsionist.

Nevertheless, what always has to be considered is that being supplied with “dirty bombs” or advanced weapons increases global terrorism threats. Why? Iran is a signatory to the NPT. If they develop the capabilities, it would undermine and most likely collapse the global non-proliferation regime, encouraging other states to do the same—or worse, if their government collapses and another group like ISIS takes over. Nevertheless, if Iran develops a nuclear bomb despite legally binding itself not to do so, this will create a nuclear arms race especially in the world’s most volatile region, where proxy wars and sectarian tensions are already rampant.

In defense of Israel: Israel never signed the NPT, but also has a policy of ambiguity on whether it has them or not, has never threatened its neighbors’ existence, and does not export ideology.

That’s where the difference lies, as Iran signed the NPT, lied repeatedly about its program, and actively threatens other countries with its expansionist dreams...especially Israel and Sunni Arab regimes 

This is not about “who has the bomb”—it’s about which governments are stable enough that you trust them with it.

Mikki_Reddit

Israel has nukes, but doesn’t need to actually use them as it also has a strong conventional military force. The last two days demonstrated that Iran is basically Hamas on steroids; it’s only been a couple of days, but a huge portion of their military command is eliminated, and the IDF is operating freely in the skies of Tehran. 
In that situation, nukes will be their only effective means to wage warfare. So the probability of them using nukes is actually much higher, against Israel or any other country they could have a conflict with in the future.
The fact that Korea allowed the Kim family to have nukes in no way justifies other totalitarian regimes to obtain them.

ctesicus

&gt;Why shouldn’t Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

The same reason Cuba isnt allowed to have nuclear missiles during the Cuban Crisis 1962.

BleuPrince

Nobody is going to read your shit. Spoiler alert it is not Iran it is the islamic republic that took over Iran 47 years ago. Iranians people themselves want to be free from the islamic republic. You are advocating for the islamic republic to have nuclear weapons which arguably the worst thing one could do for humanity (out of all the things you can do or say). No ones care what you think about Israel, Israeli are the oldest people that survived for 3000 years, just dont fuck with them

CucumberAcceptable77

Nobody should be building nuclear weapons. If iran builds them without any consequences it gives the green light for every country to build them, we then get another nuclear arms race.

richmeister6666

Israel also shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Tallis-man

IMO, no Islamic nation should be allowed to have nukes since power comes with great responsibility and Islamic leaders do not have self control and are prone to irrational decisions. 

No_Temperature_4206

[deleted]

&gt;It's not like they care about international law anyway. 

Well they *do* care, actually, when it comes to Russia and China, but not in the way you might think.

Non-proliferation, at its dirty core, isn't so much a matter of "China will not transfer nukes to Iran because China loves international law". 

Rather, the Non-proliferation treaty can be seen as a sort of grand bargain where China and Russia do not proliferate nukes to enemies of America and Israel, and in return, America agrees not to proliferate nukes to Taiwan, Vietnam and South Korea.

And America has kept up that part of the bargain quite strongly. Taiwan was as close as Iran to having a usable nuke, and the US pressured to shut it down.

Eric1491625

That's because friendly countries can become enemies and you don't want your nukes to be used on you. You also don't want them to use it on others and you get retaliated by other countries for no good reason.

ToddlerPeePee

Because making nukes isn’t about having nukes. It’s about the journey and the friends we make along the way.

Sometimes_Stutters

Russia doesn't *want* new upstart nuclear powers in the world. No nuclear power does! And China doesn't either, so its client state North Korea could never make such a deal.

notextinctyet

Why does Ross, the largest friend, not simply eat the other five?

BringOutTheImp

Of all the "unsellable" things in the world, I'm pretty sure a nuke is right at the top

jnighy

To buy something, someone has to be willing to sell it.

I wouldn't expect Russia or NK to be putting their nukes up for sale.

BetterDrinkMy0wnPiss

Buying nukes isn't a "shortcut"; it's a strategic suicide pill. It sacrifices Iran's core goals (autonomy, regional leadership, credible deterrence) for a capability that is vulnerable, unsustainable, and guaranteed to trigger its own destruction.

The simple fact is that Iran can't afford to (openly) antagonize the nuclear states, and buying nuclear weapons is *definitely* going to do that.   There are multiple countries with eyes *all over* such things, and you can bet your *ass* that the international community will know in short order that you've sent nuclear materials to a 'threshold state' like Iran.

Not only that: openly purchasing a nuclear arsenal is likely to disrupt the *extremely* fragile balance of multilateral restraint that prevents Israel, and potentially the US, from justifying some kind of pre-emptive strike.  It would be like jumping off a cliff to avoid being hit by a car.

Moreover, Iran's primary strategic goal isn't just *having* a bomb, but *mastering the entire fuel cycle and weaponization process itself*. This provides absolute control, guarantees survivability (no reliance on foreign supply chains), and maximizes deterrence value. Buying a weapon makes them perpetually dependent on the seller; doing the work 'in-house' (as it were) provides the plausible deniability of 'we're only using it to generate electricity'.

Cold-Jackfruit1076

It’s a lot easier to sneakily purchase or produce the ingredients for a nuke than it is to move one across international borders. I’m pretty certain the US and NATO by extension have eyes on every other nuke that’s legal in the world via satellites, so we’d all know if Russia so much as put a stamp on a missile bound for Tehran
Edit: spelling

aut0g3n3r8ed

I think Russia and North Korea would only hand over nukes if they got some insane leverage out of it. They may be *somewhat* aligned politically, but they are still all self interested states that primarily want to better their own position on the world stage

Also nuclear politics are just easier for everyone when there are less players involved

Dirtyibuprofen

why buy the milk when you got a cow at home

Apprehensive_Rain880

Nukes have a very distinct signature, scientists can analyze the fissionable material, and tell exactly where the bomb was made. If NK or Russia supplies nukes to Iran, it would be an undeniable act of war on their part

Ken-Popcorn

It’s pretty simple. A “few nukes” would be about a few billion dollars. CIA and every other intelligence agency in the world would know, and then either the worst sanctions you could imagine would be thrown down or just straight up bombing

jp112078

Give a man a nuke, and he can blackmail the world for a few months.

Teah a man to make nukes, and he can blackmail the world for as long as he likes!

Normal-Ear-5757

Because all nuclear materials have impurities which tie their production to specific facilities,  So Russia doesn’t want a nuclear explosion traced back to them unless they launched it.

Creative-Dust5701

The only thing Iran and Russia have is hatred for the USA. They really have nothing in common and no shared values. Under different circumstances they’d be mortal enemies, not allies of convenience. 

Alarcahu

Uhm, just the buying of nuclear weapons could spark an insane conflict which would trigger a rubber band effect. Also North Korea's "nukes" aren't really that good and don't really work

TrapezoidTom

Cause it’s a lot harder to get those nukes back and you don’t want them to be used on you. Like the Soviet Union decided they wanted to store a bunch of nuclear warheads in Ukraine, then after it’s fall Russia had to spend ages getting all those warheads back.

Downtown_Boot_3486

Because nobody that has them wants anyone else to have them

atamicbomb

Have you watched Dr Strangelove?

Nukes are bad enough in half sensible countries, let alone some of the rest.

shredditorburnit

Russia and China don't want a Nuclear armed Iran, since they are both very close to Iran. Once you get on top the mountain, the first thing you do is kick the ladder so no one else gets up there. Nuclear threat deterrent is an exclusive club, and the countries that make it there want to keep it exclusive

berilacmoss81

If Russia or China gave Iran a Nuke then US will give Tawain and South Korea nukes or Ukraine and And the Baltic stats nuke.

Fragrant-Pickle8119

IF Iran gets a nuke then Saudi Arabia will buy one from Pakistan 10 minutes later.

Coupe368

Simply because Iran is probably the one country every single nation agrees shouldn’t have nukes.

GalacticGoat242

The more countries have nukes, the less threatening nukes will become. So while Russia is putting up a front supporting Iran, I'm pretty damn sure behind the scenes, Russia would not want Iran to have nukes. The same as USA does not want Japan or Taiwan to have nukes too.

skyypirate

Well, there are two classes of reasons they can't - let's go over both of them:


1. This day's ally is tomorrow's adversary. If you actually examine both Iran's leadership and Russia and North Korea's leaderships you'll see there is a pretty large conflict of interest. Let's imagine a world where each state reaches all of its intermidiary goals - the next goal would be the other state.

For North Korea this is a little further the drain as there is a large distance between them (like half a continent) and Iran. But Russia and Iran are pretty close and project power on the same neighboring countries (the various Stans and Azerbaijan and example) as well as both being a short sea trip via the Caspian Sea 

This is however obviously only somewhat of an issue, especially for North Korea, as they do send specialists to help with various Nuclear projects (like they did in Syria).

2. Nuclear warheads need constant maintenance. You can't make a warhead and leave it in storage for 50 years - the fissile material will degrade and will cease being weapon-feasible. This means you need a constant supply of nuclear material as well as the know-how on how to refubrish the warheads. This is impractical for the above political reasons. 

Accessing nuclear missiles this way is done though in a somewhat roundabout way - the US for example stations nuclear missiles in various NATO countries thus bringing them under US nuclear umbrella protections. But for all matters the nukes are still American - their storage facilities are manned and maintained by US armed forces personnel.
This was also done in USSR days - e.g. in Cuba.

But you are still only hosting a nuclear missile - this is worlds apart from having your own.

3. Russia and North Korea has non-nuclear adversaries that they don't want to be nuclearily armed. If Russia sells to Iran what stops Israel from selling to Georgia or Ukraine for example? This balance of power is also why Iran don't have Russia's latest S400 AA systems and Israel hasn't supplied Ukraine with Iron Dome and Spike AT missiles. Same goes for South Korea and North Korea

4. Moving nuclear weapons covertly is really hard, if Iran suddenly had a nuclear weapon everyone would know the same day. While it might not deter some, it would guarantee an immediate reaction by everyone affected by it. Even if the nuke could get to Iran covertly (e.g. by a submarine), it would be a very hard secret to keep. This brings us back to the points above.

Pancakeous

They couldn’t buy aircraft let alone nuke 😂

Opening_Frame_2625

well I would say one of the biggest reasons that nobody really wants to see Iran get nuclear weapons, including a lot of their allies to be quite Frank, is the fact that I ran is one of the biggest supporters of terrorism in the world. so therefore everybody could really see Iran getting or creating so-called nuclear suitcases and oops some terrorists got one and some city across the world gets blown up. all around saying oh it's not our fault we don't know how they got it. you never can tell what or who they may be upset with considering Dave's literally attacked their own citizens before.

Shoddy_Wrangler693

I’m pretty sure that operating and maintaining nuclear weapons isn’t quite the same as borrowing a cup of sugar

Traveler2952

The difference between buying and making nuclear weapons is the difference between being a client state that only exists at the whim of the vendor and being an independent nuclear power.

CrazyJoe29

Due to safeguards in place, there is probably no way for them to be transported to Iran.  The eyes and the ears of the world wouldn't allow them to get from point A to point B.

irish_faithful

Cause then they would get absolutely rekt.  Iran just needs some good old fashioned regime change and we can be friends again, like back in the 60s before the islamist psychopaths took over.

EC_Owlbear

Do you honestly think Russia wants another nuclear power in the Middle East? No, of course not, they just want to piss off the US. Iran knows this.

KenUsimi

Most signed nonproliferation treaties…..

Iwishyouwellalways

Nuclear weapons have signatures. A particular mix of isotopes, the signatures of which are often known to the U.S. because we conducted surveillance missions after tests. 

So if Iran used a nuclear weapon that had the design characteristics of a Russian weapon, or a DPRK weapon, sooner or later they will be made to answer for that.

Magnet50

Nobody rationally thinking wants nukes in the hands of some religious extremist regime that consider life on earth as some internship before eternal paradise plus the option of killing infidels to get better seats and faster access.

Javanaut018

Awww that's cute. Reddit thinks they can school shoot the whole planet with nukes while simultaneously thinking they're the good guys.

NovaBloom1886

Theoretically speaking making your own is better . It might not be faster but it's in-house and thus theoretically more reliable.

Iran can't simply buy nukes from those countries because of the international nuclear  watch dog .

North Korea probably doesn't want that kind of fallout, probably the same with Russia .

Informal-Notice-3110

If you're Russia, would you trust Iran to not resell the nuke to some Islamist lunatics in Chechnya?

Anxious_Cheetah5589

Russia and China care more about international law than the US does...

The US left the Iran Nuclear deal. This was a deal made in 2015 that in return of lifting sanctions Iran wouldn't work towards weaponized nuclear technology. Trump left this deal.

The US also left the UN Human Rights Council, UNESCO, Paris climate accord, World Health Organization as well as the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty they had with the soviets and was still in force with the Russians.

The US is by far the biggest threat to global peace and stability.

Rindal_Cerelli

It's mainly because the current nuclear-armed states don't want other countries to get them; they have a vested interest in maintaining that exclusive status and want to avoid setting a precedent that could backfire on them (e.g. what if Eastern European states bordering Russia started developing nukes or buying them from the US?).

googologies

Making their own gets them a seat at the big Nations table 😅🌌🧠

LavishnessTop9054

Fission reactors are way harder to build than bombs. Just look at North Korea, they got nukes with way less.

Iran doesn’t need to buy or stockpile weapons. They’ve mastered the tech better than NoKo and have been slowly ramping up enrichment over the years, using it as pressure.

At 40 \~ 50%, you could still pretend it’s for research or some advanced reactor ,  the kind of thing that might’ve flown back in the Cold War with older designs.

But 60%? And a lot of it,  enough for a dozen bombs? That feels like a  message, it’s like walking right up to someone’s face,  not hitting them, just standing way too close.

I could be wrong and maybe they’re doing some new kind of research. The only thing I can think of is highly compact reactors for nuclear subs or drones … but honestly, that is even worse than nukes.

medicsansgarantee

There's a lot of value in keeping the club exclusive

gatvolkak

What we have is a lot of political theater layered on top of a lot of differing philosophies. 

Few countries want Iran to get a nuke.  Some countries say that it is not the business of other countries if they try to pursue one on their own.  

What we have seen often is that trying to build a nuke puts a target on a country, but actually having one is often an effective deterrent.

myownfan19

Coz it’s real life and not a video game / movie.

Tonytonitone1111

Because the rest of the world wouldn't allow it. The consequences for Russia, or especially North Korea, would be disastrous. No more half assed support for Ukraine, we'd be all in. Korean unification would become a reality.

Soonerpalmetto88

The actual countries that could end this world in 30 minutes at any given time, all understand not to share with those other places. 

It’s like the bully at the play ground who brought the ball but gets mad and takes it home so nobody else can have fun. Except, there are a handful of bullies and the playground is planet earth and nobody wants their death balls anyways. But they just keep swinging them around having a pissing contest.

harkonnen-hound

If you were unsure about your neighbors would you sell them a destructive device that could destroy the whole block?

Aggravating-Corgi700

Probably because tbey arent dumb enough to sell them to people who are nutjobs

Alemusanora

The United States gave nuclear technology to Iran before its 1979 revolution. In the late 1960s, the U.S. supplied Iran with the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC), including a five-megawatt research reactor, hot cells, and highly enriched uranium reactor fuel . This assistance was part of a broader cooperation that began in the 1950s and continued through the 1970s, with the U.S. helping to establish Iran’s initial nuclear infrastructure and supporting training for Iranian nuclear scientists [https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/how-the-us-helped-iran-set-up-its-nuclear-programme-32799](https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/how-the-us-helped-iran-set-up-its-nuclear-programme-32799) https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/weapon-program-background-report/history-irans-nuclear-program... After the revolution all of the help stopped of course... They had the technology and Know for ages so they feel they can build it themselves.. depending on others will mean not having full control and paying them a lot..

Appropriate_Menu6499

balamb_fish

One nuke goes off anywhere and it’s basically the end of the world.

mt569112

Why would Russians want a country so close to them to become a nuclear power?

Once you hand them some nukes...you relinquish your ability to push them around yourself.

ConstructionWest9610

We will know where it came from and theyd get shit on

AllForProgress1

I don't want any theocracy to have nuclear weapons. If you told me that the Vatican was trying to get nuclear weapons I wouldn't want that either.

Rob1150

Of the three, Russia, North Korea, Iran has the most modern and dependable nukes. DPRK can’t even make bullets that shoot straight let alone a nuclear warhead. Russians are too greedy and corrupt to spent public money on nuclear maintenance but instead would rather spend stolen money on  their mistresses and a villa in the South of France. Iran, well bless their hearts, been trying for nuclear armament like the Little Red Engine going up the hill.

nghiemnguyen415

Because Russia and North Korea aren't willing to sell nuclear weapons to Iran.

Alpharius1124

Part of me would be shocked if Iran and North Korea don't already have some Russia nukes in their arsenal. 

Those countries gave Russia so much of their conventional weapons stockpile to use in Ukraine, and I doubt Russian oil and stolen Ukrainian grain was the only part of that exchange.

the_ranting_swede

If they wanted to destroy Israel they could accomplish that by buying an existing nuke for less money than developing their own or by launching enough non nuclear missiles if they have the capacity to launch an ICBM.

Iran is a theocracy but they dont want to be a former theocracy. They understand if they nuke a country their country will get nuked and a large amount of their people and economy lives in Tehran. 

This is called the theory of mutually assured destruction. They want international influence and power. Having a nuke is protection but could never be anything more when other countries have nukes. They are in a region where several countries have nukes (Pakistan and India) abd the US would definitely launch nukes in response l.

They also mostly just currently and previously have wanted nuclear energy capabilities to expand their economy and to become a regional energy provider. Iran is an energy economy. 40% of their economy is electricity and natural gas. They want to expand that mostly.

draculabakula

I think 'our opponents are ontologically evil monsters that aren't rational and can't be treated like normal people' is a very common bit of propaganda to justify treating them less than normal people.

It is absurd to me that you try and claim North Korea is more rational than Iran, especially since it is based entirely on your assumptions about his motivations based on him being a religious cleric.

Hellioning

I can probably name a dozen reasons they might want nukes, and none of them are mutually exclusive. In the modern world, states want nukes. It benefits them a lot to have nukes.

So, I’m not objecting to your “destroy israel” comment, I’m objecting to your “not as a deterrent” part. Those arent mutually exclusive

Altho I will say any modern state that initiates nuclear war had better have enough nukes for everybody if they want to keep existing afterwards. As much as they suck, Iran’s gvmt does seem interested in self preservation

RickyNixon

Well, given the geopolitics of the time - just look at what happened to Ukraine - it is clear that for any country with hostile neighbors, nukes are a necessity if you want to deter trouble. Any guarantee by the nuclear powers is useless as long as the UN veto exists.

This is especially so for a country like Iran which has limited allies - certainly none that would go to war for them.

There's no reason to automatically assume Iran is simply homicidal instead of wanting the option to defend themselves from more powerful hostile neighbors.

Any country that uses nukes as a first strike is fucked. Everyone knows that. Even theocrats. There are religious nutcases who will pull suicide attacks, but those types rarely make it that high in the government. The types that are smart enough to get into power want to live more than they want to kill their enemies.

RavensQueen502

Iran could literally bomb Israel through overwhelming the iron dome as they've shown clearly literally yesterday, and yet they only do so as retaliation and are quite restrained in their targeting. Idk how that signals that they'd nuke Israel if they could, they could do a lot more damage than they do now and simply don't do it

__akkarin

You might be right that they are evil but are they stupid? It Doesn’t matter how nationalistic or anti-israel they are, nuking any country not just israel means that they would be wiped off the map too. This is a bluffing game at its finest.

Your argument seems to be a emotional one meant to manipulate us

dxvviddd

Benjamin Netanyahu is on record since the early 1990s saying that Iran is weeks or years away from developing nuclear weapons. He has had the exact same speech, the exact same type of statements and not a single person has called him out on it, especially in the western mainstream media. In 2002 he gave a speech to our Congress where he said that if you take out Saddam it will have positive reverberations throughout the region. It is a known fact that Israel heavily pushed for the United States to attack Iraq. In that same speech in 2002 he said that we should also do the same thing to Libya, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran.And ever since 2002 there are numerous occasions where he claims the same thing that Iran is years away from a nuclear weapon.

Sitar21

Israel would not be as bold to assassinate Iranian officials, bomb Iranian consulates and bomb Tehran if Iran had nuclear weapons. Israel has shown time and time again to be an aggressive, rogue state in the region who only responds to military might. They

Stubbs94

Look, the Iranian government sucks, but this whole "the Mad Mullahs would nuke MUH WEST and MUH ISRAEL" talking point is utter nonsense. Iran wants nukes as a deterrent, not as an offensive weapon.

DrWaffle1848

I'm not even bothering to read the text past the title. Utter nonsense that Iran would nuke Israel.

For one, that would make the area uninhabitable, the area which the Palestinians plan to have.

Two, it would probably make Jerusalem uninhabitable (if not outright destroyed), which no Islamic regime is going to do. A secular nation might, but an extremist Islamic regime isn't about to hit anything near Jerusalem with a nuclear bomb of all things.

Finally, the Iranian regime isn't stupid enough to risk getting nuked back.

What Iran wants is freedom from foreign interference, and Pakistan is proof that if you have nukes, the whole world will not interfere and will even provide funds to keep you stable, lest the nukes fall into the wrong hands.

Maybe if the US didn't have a very long history of foreign interference, Iran wouldn't be looking at nukes. Just a thought.

-Notorious

If North Korea can keep it in its pants, so can Iran. The thing likely holding them back is the same, if they were to use nukes, they’d get nuked. Iran knows Israel and the US would use nuclear force in relation to any nuclear attack on Israel like North Korea knows the US would strike them if they struck South Korea.

FerdinandTheGiant

given the deep ties betwen the israeli government and the jewish religion would not the same argument be made about why iran can't allow israel to have nukes. remember officially israel does not have them yet.  by your logic wouldn't tehran have a moral imperative against a millenia old enemy in the jewish people to prevent israel getting nukes at any cost?

duelistjp

You are an Israelli saying they want to destroy you while your government is killing innocents. I have nothing against you, but your nation/government is an occupying power killing those who simply have a different culture, belief system, ethnicity, etc. Israel is commiting genicide, and they struct Iran first. They have a right to feel threatened and funding proxy groups is no different then how the US does things. Thats probably where they got the idea from seeing it was done in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. 

Israel has how many nukes? Iran has how mamy? 
Mutually assured destruction or M.A.D is what leverage another nation to not use them. They protect sovereignty at the trade off of extinction if used, unless the other party doesnt have them. 

Are you aware Israel made statements that if they didn't have U.S bunker missiles they would have needed used their nukes to hit their bunkers?
Does this sound like a deterrent, or does it sound like someone who wants to have continue to have power and will use any means to do so?

To be as blunt as possible your people are involved, and instead of acting with empathy you are acting with fear. Have you considered thinking what a Palestinian child might feel, or think? What an Iranian citizen feels when they see your country building open air prisons and starving Muslims? 

Lastly, you cannot even critque another government when yours is apartheid in nature and actively cleansing an ethnicity. Israel is a theology just like Iran, get off your high horse. Your country has destablized the Middle East, you stole for the things you have(nukes), and now you want to play victim? 

Also before former President Joe Biden left office, we did a display of force and bombed their missile reserves, and enrichment facilities in the mountains of Iran. Was this recent force really necessary as enrichment is such a time consuming process? Did Israel need to kill all Iranian officials and their families? 

I would strongly argue Iran wanted nukes as a means of deterence as for the past 60 some years they have been invaded, controlled, and bombed by foreign powers. They live right next to the worlds second biggest aggressor at the moment, Israel. It makes all the sense in the world to have a deterence and they would lose everything from using it. Also Israel is using biblical quotes to justify their actions, killing woman and children. Iran does the same, so any statement of freedom fights or jihad type shit can be said about Israel as well.

AssignmentMammoth450

Back when George w made that axis of evil statement,those in that axis pursued the ability to protect themselves from us.this country is known to invade other countries over lies.Iraq for instance they were named and then invaded.people in this country think we are fighting wars to keep America safe,but in fact we’re fighting wars to make the wealthy more wealthy,at the expense of our young people’s lives.

Powerful-Cellist-748

CobraPuts

Iran has been fairly rational in their actual foreign policy and far less belligerent than Israel, on the global stage. Whether Iran would like to destroy Israel, or whether that’s just the usual rhetoric, they do want to live. Any nuclear strike on Israel would undoubtedly bring an equal or greater nuclear strike from Israel and the United States. Iran is almost certainly just seeking a deterrent. 

Your government is expansionist and has to propagandize its population to keep its citizens in line. Don’t believe everything the state and its very friendly media outlets tell you.

alohazendo

Just look at what happened to any Nation that gave up their weapons see: Ukraine, Libya, Iraq, Syria. 


No one wants to be Gaddafied. North Korea for example having a nuclear weapon means that the US and South Korea will never step foot into North Korea uninvited. Iran was also negotiating with the US for Non-Weapons grade enrichment. 


Coordinating with Israel for this attack has not only shown the Iranians that the US can't negotiate in good faith, but other nations that It would be in their interest To not bargain with the US.


Also free Palestine

Vepper

Yes, and so what?

Israel refused to sign the NPT for 50 years, when Iran had accepted to sign it. So, israel is the first to have dwelled on the "lets have nuke" path. Israel still hasnt recognized officially having nukes to this day, even tho its estimated that you possess 80 to 100 nuclear heads.

In front of the moral you are trying to use, israel is the problem here, isnt it? Refusing a treaty, lying about having them, accusing iran of having it etc..

Israel has been accusing Iran of possessing the nuclear bomb since before I was born, so its one of two things. Either Israel has lied, and therefore they cannot be trusted. Or israel said the truth, yet iran still hasnt nuked israel in over 35 years (Earliest accusations ive found) and them having it isnt that much of a problem. 

Does iran have a will to destroy israel? Sure. But the same way Israel plans to nuke the surrounding countries if they feel like it, it will only come with provocation.

DrummerAutomatic9523

I believe that Israel is able to act like bully because they have a strong military and a Big US stick under their control. When Iran gets a nuclear weapon, they may punish Israel for their Pearl Harbor Sneak attack, but I doubt they would use a nuclear weapon unless Israel does. Personally, I hope Iran gets a nuclear weapon so Israel  won’t have the freedom to continuously attack their neighbors without harsh punishment.

rkieltyka

A lot of people’s entire worldview is tied up in believing this, you’re probably one of them as well. I’m not sure there’s any changing it. You fundamentally believe in the validity of western-coded nations like Israel over more sanctioned nations like Iran

weird_mountain_bug

Is this some Israel psyop on reddit right now? 

This is the 4th one of these "Israel is right to destroy Iran" posts on CMV today. Where are the mods? Why so many duplicate posts allowed?

Cartire2

All arguments are moot. NOBODY should dictate which country should/shouldn't have nukes. Especially not the nation's who already have nukes. If Iran attempts and successfully develops nuclear weapons as a sovereign nation, no one has the right to question it.

TheBigShitowski

Well they certainly do now. They’ll never trust the US (much less Israel) to make a deal again. They’ll get one from next door within 6 months. History will remember Obama’s success and Trump and Netanyahu’s psychopathy.

013eander

Iran is reportedly preparing to leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty amid escalating tensions with Israel.

Iran Nuclear Treaty and Weapons Development

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want