Public sentiment surrounding the Middle East nuclear tensions is overwhelmingly negative, marked by a strong anti-war sentiment, deep concerns about nuclear proliferation, and fears of political escalations. Many commenters express support for Iran's right to defend itself while criticizing U.S. involvement and Israeli actions. Amidst frustrations, there's a common desire for peace and truthful reporting, highlighting widespread skepticism towards political narratives and leadership in the region.

Iran

Israel

United States

Hello u/UrAn8! Welcome to r/10thDentist!

---

For other users, does this post fit the subreddit?

If so, **upvote this comment!**

Otherwise, **downvote this comment!**

And if it does break the rules, **downvote this comment and report this post!**

qualityvote2

According to game theory you're correct. But there's always a chance one of them goes full leeroy jenkins and decides Allah or God or Jesus told them to push the button and we all end up playing irl fallout. Not that that couldn't happen with any other country, but most other countries aren't as susceptible to it.   

I'm not hating on the middle east I'm just being realistic. You could draw any other religious figure besides theirs getting mouth and assfucked at the same time with your name on it and you'd get some angry emails at worst alongside a lot of laughs. You do that shit with Mohammad or Allah and there's a non-zero chance you get killed for it. Now imagine the people trying to kill you for that have nukes. Even Israel wouldn't kill you for depicting God or a prophet as a gay prostitute but they're pretty brutally violent themselves too and I wish they didn't have nukes either. We've nearly had the world ended twice by the russians and their nuclear program and they're a majority Christian nation. Religion and nukes just aren't a good mix.  

This post has been edited to reflect the fact that all religions have and still do kill people for the wrong reasons even to this day. There's one in particular that's the most petty about it but they're all brutal and violent at times and they've all killed a ton of people throughout recorded history. Please stop blowing up my inbox and trying to start an argument, all you're doing is proving my point in doing so.

Key-Mycologist-7272

You know that region of the planet that welcomes death in the name of murdering the people your god doesnt like? That view killing themselves and everyone around them, including strangers and family alike, just to kill one infidel is a holy act worthy of praise and martyrdom?Yeah give them all nukes.

SaltMacarons

lol, this is indeed a cataclysmically bad take 

AdamOnFirst

If you're gonna give nukes, give them to everyone. When everyone is capable of tyranny, nobody is.

HeroBrine0907

I agree, but for different reasons 😂 at this point I wish they set them all off on each other, we need a reset lmao

Efficient-Shallot776

I think the better solution would be nuclear disarmament world wide but sure I guess that's an idea too.

irrelevantanonymous

Definitely a hot take, but pretty demonstrably correct. Haven't seen America invade any countries that have nukes, curiously enough. Turns out that if only some countries have nukes, it's not exactly "mutually assured destruction" but rather "individually assured destruction".

Stupid-Jerk

MAD only works when you have sane people running the show.

Tyler89558

GrandTie6

It'd certainly be quieter, at some point. 

OkMention9988

The Middle East has used every single weapon invented against themselves. Swords, guns, explosives, chemicals, biological, what makes you think they wouldn’t use nuclear? If the Middle East had nukes, there wouldn’t be a Middle East anymore.

SilverLine1914

Well, [https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/1ldn21d/nukes\_are\_based/](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/1ldn21d/nukes_are_based/)

Inside_Jolly

When you account for fundamentalism you'd find the place transformed into a glass desert already.

  
The people who leaked nuclear plans to the USSR did so because they were communist traitors (and in so doing sparked a massive witch hunt for anyone perceived to have left wing sympathies) and they wanted to avoid the USSR being defeated.

JRDZ1993

I don't trust their leaders not to sacrifice their own people

Immediate_Loquat_246

Post made by a clueless guy with absolutely no idea what group of people he’s talking about

Sheebuns

Last thing I need is some terror org that believes suicide is righteous to have a nuke. And yes there are terror orgs that basically run some countries.

Commercial_Pie3307

The world would better off if we used nuclear material for energy instead of weapons

BoltsGuy02

Every person should have a few hundred nukes. This way nobody would hurt anyone else, would they? 

What could go wrong?

likewhatever33

Wrong. Every tyrant would hide behind his nuclear arsenal like Putin does. 

A dictator with nukes is a dictatorship nobody can end.

DerBandi

Right...


That definitely wouldn't impact the rest of the world in any way whatsoever 🙄

ShitWombatSays

OP, imagine you didn't eat breakfast this morning.

If the Middle East has nuclear weapons at dawn, we'd have nuclear war by lunchtime. Tinpot dictators and religious fanatics *do not care*. They'd wipe us all out from ignorance and spite.

Cynis_Ganan

Allah wouldn't allow it. Only scimitars and praying is.

whatthebosh

This only works if all parties involved are rational actors who have equal incentive and desire to avoid death. This is not the case in the Middle East.

Pale_Zebra8082

Satirakiller

The problem with this is the religious zealots that govern some of the countries and the instability of the governments of many Middle Eastern countries.  Significantly more likely for a bomb to be used, or sold to terrorists.

Rooster-Training

I mean there have been a couple of times ww3 almost happened due to glitches and such. Petrov saved the world in 83. There have been other times. Not sure the same checks would let cooler heads prevail.

Dry-Clock-1470

You’re not dealing with rational people in the Middle East.

No-Competition-2764

Yeah, that's definitely 10th dentist.  All it would take is for one fundamentalist zealot with their hand on the button and we're all going.

CallmeKahn

Russias official state policy is that everyone will die in nuclear hellfires and all the Russians will go to heaven.

I doubt at least some group's in the middle east are much different.

Designer_Version1449

I don’t think religious fanatics would be as deterred by MAD as the US and Russians are

Falcons1702

American schools would be much safer if *all* the kids had guns

ImpliedRange

In the case of the Middle East, proliferation would really only lead to increased chance of miscalculation and employment. 

Barring Iran, nobody in the Middle East really cares about regional stability, they’re all focused on internal stability and regime survival. 

Regional conflicts have mostly been contained to ongoing fights against Iranian proxies and local skirmishes against Israel, plus a spate of popular uprisings and civil wars.

SweatyTax4669

That is like saying that teachers in USA schools should carry weapons to avoid mass shootings. Exact same argument.

martinomacias

And then tinpot dictator #43 triggers armageddon before he's ousted because he thinks the world should go down with him. Or maybe Allah tells some maniac he ought to push the big red button.

ViscountBuggus

thewNYC

I think 0 religious extremists should have nukes

Many-Cartographer278

Countries led by greedy psychopaths having nukes? Not great but at least predictable. They still have reason.

Countries led by religious zealots having nukes? With a religion that tells them to kill everyone not subscribing to their religion? Yeah, no thank you.

kenwoolf

The middle east would be a giant field of glass shards if they all had nukes.

Zip83

You know what sucks about mutually assured destruction?

The “destruction” part.

KingMGold

Or what if nobody anywhere had nukes ever

Nodnoc11

MAD works when everyone is sane enough to consider life better than death. Religious fanatics do not fit that description. Sharia madmen would be telling their followers they get 72 virgins if they die in nuclear fire.

Material_Election_48

Ah, yes. The people known for suicide bombing as part of their religious duty would surely be better off if they had nuclear weapons. Surely surely.

FuzzyAsparagus8308

You people are very naive.  This only works if people want peace. Not everyone wants peace.   

Soththegoth

MAD doctrine only works if the county in question cares about self preservation. Iran funds groups who consistently do suicide attacks. They don't care about their own lives, they care more about destroying Israel and the West.

snipman80

Nah

Mutually assured destruction is only effective if all parties are afraid of death. The existence of suicide bombers is a really good example that this is not the case. 

Iran made it perfectly clear publicly in no uncertain terms that they plan to wipe Isreal off the face of the map as soon as they are able. 

Iram is also THE premier bank account that funds every middle-eastern terrorist organization. Including Al Queda, Isis and Hamas. They claimed responsibility for an assassination attempt on a US president. Etc etc. 

Giving them access to nukes would be a horrifically stupid plan. 

Imagine for a moment, Al-Queda suicide bombers with a nuke and a van.

everydaydefenders

That only works when all of the countries actually value being alive.  Certain religions in the area are super cool with suicide bombings and 72 virgins.

Last_Plankton4154

upvote 

yeah but idk about the jihadists who kill themselves to kill others

Odd_Violinist2395

I guess if you want the Middle East wiped off the planet… sure… 🤷‍♀️

Southern_Egg_3850

the prevailing fear in Israel is that Iran, being led by religious fundementalists, might take the deal of mutual destruction, rationilizing that losing one muslim nation in the name of god is worth it to take the "infidels" out.

especially since they're very loud about how much they don't think Israelis have a right to exist.

the_blonde_lawyer

thewolfcrab

Far too much religious influence in the region, terrible take.

Nervouspotatoes

It would be end of the world. Immediately.

EconomyAd9081

Mutually assured destruction only works if everyone involved is sane.

Awkward-Motor3287

And the rest of us? Considering everything, I dont trust a single middle-eastern country to have nukes, considering the rampant religious extremism that we do see there, and how the views towards people of other beliefs, seem the opposite of kind.

Substantial-News-336


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

&gt;Asked where Trump personally stands on how close Iran was to getting a nuclear weapon, given what Gabbard testified just months ago, Trump told reporters on Air Force One, “very close.”
&gt;
&gt;When pressed on her specific testimony that they weren’t, Trump said, “I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having it.”

You'd think if she had any self respect she would resign, after he just publicly trashed her like that. She is the Director of National Intelligence and if she doesn't command the confidence of the president then her position seems untenable.

cennep44

As Jon Stewart pointed out recently. They were months away in 2015, the weeks away in 2018

DarthLysergis

The exchange between DNI Gabbard and Dear Leader Trump in the article tells a lot. Our own DNI and Coup Leader are not on the same side on the assessments. Anyone confident in the objectiveness of our intelligence agencies?

0098six

Netanyahu has been sounding the alarm since 2012 looking to justify a war. Now that they have an easily manipulated, openly corrupt clown in the White House it’s their best chance yet to strike and rope the US in as well.

JohnnySack45

Iran has been weeks away from making a nuclear bomb for at least a decade now.

Promethia

Seems like a lot of mixed messaging. Israel says Iran was close, and I don’t trust them 100%. Gabbard says they were not close, and I don’t trust her. Trump contradicted Gabbard and said they were close, and he’s a massive liar. The IAEA says they have the uranium they need and could be getting close? I think the world is better off if Iran doesn’t have nukes but I don’t love the continued military action especially if it turns out that they weren’t close to a weapon or weren’t even necessarily pursuing one.

StormOk7544

Israel has been saying two years since 2002

wecanneverleave

Doc Brown was trading plutonium from Lybian terrorists 40 years ago

yarash

Well when you’ve already figured out how to do something I’m sure everyone seems close. I bet someone watching Edison try to make a light bulb the first time would say he was days away. It took him 2 years and over 1,000 attempts to get it right. I guess part of the problem is that we don’t know what they don’t know.

DJMOONPICKLES69

If I was a Middle Eastern country, I’d want a nuke too. They seemed to get freedom-invaded a lot. A nuke will make someone think twice.

darthpayback

Like the so called “weapons of mass destruction” we never found in the last war

SurfingTheMatrix

Why wont Israel sign their nuclear agreements?

1Wiseguy999

Surprise surprise. Reminds me of when Netanyahu gave an elaborate speech for why the US had to bomb Iraq in the early 2000s. Every country around Israel is apparently a threat except itself, and needs to be bombed and destabilized.

Objective_League_118

Israel has until the midterms next year to get rid of Iran as a threat and annex Gaza and the West Bank. Which means Iran was going to have a nuke before November 2026. 

Didn’t you guys know Iran’s nuclear program was running on Israel’s annexation schedule? 

ARazorbacks

If you’re wondering why Israel is such a close US ally, this is part of why. The existence and policy of both is based overwhelmingly on lies

Syebost11

Western media is complicit in coddling Israel and letting them get away with it

Similar-Low-3114

CNN contradicting the Israeli narrative. You know we are in serious situation now.

Edit: Adding that people interested in our Middle East policy should look into Brett McGurk since this guy has been pushing garbage his entire career. Biden kept him on. Trump did too.

longtermattention

I suspect the only thing that was "racing towards" was Netanyahu's approval ratings were "racing towards" the toilet. Which means he was "racing towards" jail. So he had to wag the dog.

CTPeachhead

Stop me if you've heard this one before "We have to stop Iraq from getting Weapons of Mass Destruction"

Wait, did I say Iraq? I meant Iran, I said Iran. You can't prove I said Iraq. Either way, we have to stop WMD's

TransiTorri

If Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon before these strikes, they definitely are going to be working on one as fast as possible now.

Word1_Word2_4Numbers

Bibi cosplaying as Colin Powell at the UN in 2003. Great.

tom_snout

Intel?  Didn't we outlaw that stuff already?

redditpest

Because of the lack of weaponization, not necessarily the lack of enriched uranium. The real question I guess is how close do you want Iran to be to a nuclear weapon, taking into account the margin of error in estimating where you think they really are, given the inherent difficulties in making such assessments with an uncooperative state?

NagyLebowski

More like Netanyahus government was racing towards collapse so he pulled a new warfront out of his ass to distract everyone.

theCroc

I wonder who Bibi will bomb next to stay out of jail.  This is some sick shit.

Farking_Bastage

Iran has been months away from nuclear weapons longer than I have been alive.

Mooseboy24

Running that Iraq playbook again, it’s working on the boomers and some of y’all. No thanks to war. Congress needs to act now.

CottonCitySlim

Reminder: everyone is “racing towards the finish line” the moment a marathon starts

DanceWithEverything

Israel did? You mean the 19/35 countries on the IAEA board did.

It's crazy how the headline of this article is from a line that references "four people familiar with the assessment" yet ignores the rest of it.

BeguiledBeaver

trump is the illegitmate child of sister and brother. like joffrey.

Fair_Description1604

Doesn’t matter if it was close or far. Iran can’t have nukes.

CupcakesAreTasty

US Intel under Trump is now 3rd rate and unreliable.

MagicBingo

Knowing who is at the head of the departments can we trust our intelligence?

NovelHare

Apparently the story of the kid who cried wolf does not apply to these countries. I wonder how the rest of the world would react if the scenario really became Iraq 2.0. Would these countries be held accountable?

Vozzl3r

Sorry, but I don’t believe Netanyahu or his genocidal regime. Even if I did, you don’t get to just go attack your neighbors for having the same weapons you do.

keytotheboard

"Iran is close to producing a nuclear weapon within three to five years, and this threat needs to be uprooted by an international front led by the U.S." NuttenYahoo said this in 1992.

CenturyLinkIsCheeks

Countdown to Israel nuking Iran because "They were about to launch one at us"

DigitalRoman486

Netanyahu has been claiming that Iran is 1 year away from finishing their nukes since 2002.

mikemd1

Iran was even farther away from Nuclear weapons when there was a treaty they were following to not develop them.  It sure would be nice if we still abided by that treaty!

kia75

The sheer amount of song and dance that had to be done to get buy in for Iraq looks like due diligence compared to this, even if it's just as fake and sinister. Not even the anti-war president can jerk Israel's leash, we're along for the death drive to the bitter end.

Levin_B

Isn't it still bad even if it is years away? 

AttitudeRemarkable21

Do we really need to take a chance with them getting the most destructive bomb the world has every known?  Their support for terrorism is undeniable and add a nuclear weapon to the mix? No thank you

marlaw832

Trump should ask Putin about it. He believes him more than our intelligence

hidraulik-2

If this is correct Trump is wanting a war with Iran. 

  
[https://www.rawstory.com/unprecedented-mass-deployment-of-warplanes-across-atlantic-fuels-fears-of-us-w/](https://www.rawstory.com/unprecedented-mass-deployment-of-warplanes-across-atlantic-fuels-fears-of-us-w/)

snowlion000

Tensions are rising surrounding Iran's nuclear capabilities, with Israel executing military responses against Iranian nuclear sites amid disputes over the true nature of Iran's nuclear program.

Middle East Nuclear Tensions

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want