Public sentiment towards the Iran nuclear talks is largely negative, characterized by skepticism about Iran's intentions, disappointment in the efficacy of past agreements, and distrust towards U.S. and allied diplomatic efforts. Many commenters believe that war is imminent due to the breakdown of previous negotiations and perceive Iranian leadership as untrustworthy. Amidst this, there is a split opinion on Pakistan's involvement in the narrative, with some criticizing its stance and others expressing solidarity with Iran, further complicating the public perception of the conflict.

Iran

United States

Israel

Pakistan

European Nations

Post is flaired QUESTION. Stick to the question 

Please report bad faith commenters 

Push yourself .. because no one else is going to do your laundry.

VAWNavyVet

No, I don't think there would be a "war" going on with Iran had Trump not pulled out of the deal.

By pulling out of the deal, Iran has no reason to make any agreements with the United States.  Why should it?  Due to Trump's poor foreign policy, the United States has shown that it won't act in good faith on agreements its made with other countries.  Why make a deal that weakens your country when you know the other side is unlikely to keep it.  Seriously, Trump is complaining about the trade deal **he** made with Canada and Mexico and went and put tariffs on them... going against said trade deal.  Iran has no reason to trust the United States government to honor its deals.

Second, Trump reinstated sanctions.  Well, the government of Iran now has to deal with the issues caused by those sanctions, which results in Iran being weakened as a regional power and as a country.

What's the best way to strengthen one's position in the international power game of foreign policy?  To have nuclear weapons.  And to push for more power in one's own region.

I'm not saying Iran would turn into some democratic liberal country if Trump hadn't pulled out of the deal, the United States fucked that up in the 70s; but, Iran would have little to no reason to start a war or invest in nuclear weapon research.

Seriously, look at the situation in Ukraine.  Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees from western countries to protect them from potential invasion by its neighbors.  And thanks to Trump, we really aren't honoring that deal either.  

Seriously, why would any country not try to get their hands on nuclear weapons at this point?  The only way to be taken seriously right now is to be able to cause MAD.

Severe-Independent47

Of course not. Trump is clearly directly responsible for the current crisis.

cossiander

Nope. It would not have. We had this covered with diplomacy. No war.

DiscretelyDeviant

Probably not, but that's why Trump pulled out of the treaty in the first place. He wanted his war with Iran. He was constantly trying to get Iran to retaliate as a justification for war in his first term.

poketrainer32

The JCPOA was working. The stockpiling of enriched nuclear material started again after Trump broke the deal.

RandomEngy

 No. I don’t think this would be happening right now.

vibes86

Maybe but that's mainly because the claims that Iran is close to having nuclear weapons is completely made up and I have no doubts Israel and the Trump administration would lie about it if the Iran Nuclear Deal were still in place. 

With that said, if the goal was to keep Iran from getting nukes, staying in the deal would've been the best way to do that.

Sky-Trash

Yes. Iran is on the 7 countries clean break strategy. This was a long time cooking. 


Israel has been saying Iran is close to a nuclear bomb for 20 years. It hasn't happened. Even by Israel's own propaganda estimate today, Iran is a year away from cresting a nuclear weapon. 


US intelligence showed Iran was still compliant with no-proliferation agreements and had no intentions of a non-civilian nuclear program.


The trigger for this war wasn't Iran violating the agreement even though the agreement no longer exists. The trigger of the war Israel attacking. Israel would have attacked regardless.

burrito_napkin

It's more complicated than that, but Trump's policies toward Iran, Israel, and Palestine didn't help.

reluctant-return

There probably would have been a war eventually. Israel has been yelling that Iran is very close to making a nuke since the 1980s; no matter what treaties or inspections or whatever would have been in place it would have become a pretext when convenient eventually.

Which is now.

Moppermonster

Israel wasn't going to ever give up on taking out Iran


You could make the argument that Iran is weaker today because of sanctions. 

Israel has seemingly the perfect opportunity to move Iran, including bozo in chief letting Bibi sabotage the US and diplomacy.

dudeandco

Contrary to the Israeli bleating for the past 40 years, especially from the world biggest liar netanyahu, Iran was never interested in launching a nuclear strike on anyone in the Middle East. Every nation has the right to defend itself, and every nation has the right to manufacture war material. 

Thr Israeli have no superior status to make demands of anyone. It's time the Americans stop their posturing too.

ritzcrv

I don't think so, but it's not directly tied to Iran's nuclear program. Iran and Israel have been enemies to the death for decades - without the US basically making Israel untouchable, Iran probably would have attacked some time in the last 50 years, but the reverse is also true. Israel is very beholden to the US and so the US has some control on the leash. Biden pulled the leash back, Trump let it go.

Pulling out of the deal probably made this conflict more or less inevitable (and guaranteed nuclear proliferation around the world, long term) because Iran had every reason TO develop the nuke at that point if the deal wasn't re-established. But the conflict now isn't so much about Iran having a nuke, I'm deeply skeptical of Israeli claims that they were "days" away from a functional nuclear warhead. Instead, I think four things are largely converging to make the war inevitable:

-Trump gov, obviously.

-A lot of major players don't like the Iranian government, and want it gone. Iran, US, etc. "We want Iran gone" isn't really a controversial opinion in US foreign policy/security circles, pretty bipartisan. Israel/Iran eternal vendetta goes here.

-Israel can kind of do whatever the fuck it wants because the US won't let it fall so it can punch up as much as it wants, so long as the US tacitly/explicitly approves. Therefore they aren't really THAT scared of a war, as long as Iran cannot credibly missile bomb them.

-And the big one, Iran is just weak right now. They are at war and they are putting on a paper tiger display so far. Maybe terminally so, we'll all find out in the coming days and weeks.

Pulling out of the deal allowed Trump to reinstate sanctions and those, in turn, weakened Iran. Over a long enough time scale you get to where we are today, where their ballistic missile reserves are seemingly much lower than predicted and they lack the mass saturation fire ability to really pound Israel in a retaliatory kind of way. I am honestly not surprised by the war, it seemed somewhat inevitable to me after the attacks last year.

Israel seems to have been seriously emboldened after all their attacks in 2024 going so incredibly, and Iran's retaliation being so weak. Now that we are in a full-blown war between the two, Iran has been able to muster hot words but not the hot shots they need to win. They're pretty clearly seriously vulnerable. Without the US to hold them back, and with Iran so vulnerable, an Israeli strike was pretty much inevitable IMHO after 2024.

So, no, if Trump had not pulled out of the deal I don't think we would have this war but that is more of a factor of sanctions over time wearing down Iranian missile reserves/replenishment creating terminal geopolitical vulnerability rather than a credible nuclear threat in my opinion. The nuclear threat is just a stick to wave around to justify the war and the regime change that Israel/US/West have been hungering to install for decades. ANY war started with Iran would have always been justified by "They are about to get nukes" as long as they didn't shut down the Strait or outright start a war on their own.

As an aside, I think the worst case outcomes here are the Strait of Hormuz getting shut down somehow for an extended period, a dirty bomb ICBM attack, or an extended Syrian-esque situation.

KingOfSockPuppets

Difficult to know. I suspect Netanyahu wanted to attack Iran and would have found a reason to regardless. However, I do not know if that is the case.

AnymooseProphet

BigNorseWolf

Of course it would. Iran started stockpiling 60% enriched uranium since 2021. 
People need to stop talking about shit they know nothing about. Iran has been working on nukes for decades, the nukes deal only delayed them, while allowing them to build all the infrastructure necessary to build nukes. Oct 7 was the catalyst for wven more 60% enriched Uranium, not Trump pulling out of the deal, a deal that Iran had very little reason to keep once it was advanced enough. 


https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/13/middleeast/iran-nuclear-program-explainer-intl-dg

Hatook123

He guaranteed Israel would have to respond.

ThunderPigGaming

I do not think we would be in this mess. To put it differently, I think it would have been considerably less likely. Is that a "definitely wouldn't have happened"? No. Nothing is definite, especially in matters of foreign relations and international diplomacy. There are too many variables to discuss what could have been with absolute certainty, but we can make reasonable inferences. 

I will say that the nuclear deal gave the US an "in" with Iran. It allowed us a degree of oversight and attempted to normalize relations, which is good. Was it a perfect deal? Nope, some of the notice periods were too long (24 days which could occasionally expand out to 60) but it was a very "light touch" approach. Still, the beginning of relations is always like that and having some access and oversight is far better than having none (we had the latter without the deal). It was a shockingly good deal and Iran was surprisingly compliant (I had thought Iran would be the one to break the deal... that is before we got Trump). I also think we utilized the overt nuclear deal to bolster our covert operations and information apparatuses in the region, but of course that is speculation. 

Iran already has (and had) nuclear material. It can (and does) mine it domestically. So we can't stop them from acquiring uranium. The only questions are "do we get oversight or not?" and "can we pressure them to lean more towards nuclear power and away from nuclear weapons?". Under the nuclear deal, we had oversight and the ability to push them one direction. Without it, we had no oversight and less of an ability to push them one direction. That oversight was critical, and we basically blew it for no good reason and in doing so broke the trust and diplomatic good will we had with the country, threw away all the previous efforts and assets we pulled to make the deal happen, and turned Iran into a "black box" where we had no oversight.

 It was a painfully stupid move to withdraw from the deal and I have yet to really hear a strong reason for it. It always comes down to vaguries like "it was a bad deal" (Ok, how?) or "it was too soft on Iran". It was an early step, of course we would step softly because we know the consequences of America treading oafishly into policing the middle east with "strength"... we get shit like what we are seeing now with "you need to accept our deal within 30 days." followed by missiles being shot. I think the opposition to the nuclear deal basically amounts to "Obama bad, Iran is scary Muslims, Israel is our special exclusive forever friend and doesn't like Iran, Iran does not like Israel and is funding proxies, so deal = bad." which is a very stupid reason to withdraw. The deal opened up diplomatic relations between Iran and the US while still keeping diplomatic relations between Israel and the US (in which US could act as arbiters to try and lessen tensions between both parties, by no means "peace in the middle east" but a step in the right direction, similar to Israel and Egypt after the Camp David Accords - by no means allies but at least not overt enemies). 

In short, pulling out of the nuclear deal was a bad idea and it led to this. The nuclear deal was "soft diplomacy" but it worked decently enough, now we are currently witnessing the consequences of "hard diplomacy" (it's just open conflict).

AltiraAltishta

Yes, it’s one thing the Dems and GOP politicians are in lock step about, war and unconditional submissive support to Israel.


It was always Israel’s plan to have America topple Iran for them.
Just like we did to Iraq based on Bibis assurance that they had WMDs, or his guarantee that removing Saddam would have enormous positive repercussions for the region.

The timing just coincidentally happens to be right when the world is realising the horrors happening in Gaza and majority support is turning against them.
Wait a new war in Iran.

The US is now at war with Iran and Russia via their proxy’s. If Iran is attacking Israel because they fund Hamas and they are acting as proxy’s then the same applies here.

Melvin_2323

MoeSzys

Ukraine is exhibit 1 for what happens when you’re in a region where you MUST be able to defend yourself but you don’t have nukes. Same reason Israel NEEDED them.  Iran was NEVER going to stop its pursuit of nukes. Not only was this mess inevitable, it’s likely to play out elsewhere in the future. For example, people might think Vietnam is still a third world nation but they are making gains rapidly and they have to be somewhat concerned with their regional safety… it’s just logical.

Ohnoes999

Netanyahu has been wanting to do this for ages, regardless of circumstances.

Netanyahu is polling badly at home and elections will take place next year.  If snap elections were held today, Netanyahu would lose.  This may have more to do with him and Likud than with the US.

A Democratic president would have likely opposed this attack.  To the extent that a lack of support would have deterred Israel, the attack may have been less likely to take place if Trump was not there.  Regardless, Netanyahu is hungry for conflict and doesn't seem to care what the US thinks much of the time.

Dots to connect:

* It is clear that Netanyahu wants US help.
* It is no secret that Trump gets his knowledge of the world from Fox News.
* Netanyahu has a long standing connection with the Murdochs.
* Fox News is carrying the water for Netanyahu.
* Trump is having many defeats of his own on his home front.
* Trump's public rhetoric suggests that he thinks that Iran provides him with an opportunity for an easy win.

(This is what happens when you have dim bulbs in the White House.)

I405CA

Netanyahu has been pushing for war with Iran for over a decade. He's been claiming Iran has been weeks or at most months away from obtaining a nuclear weapon since 2012. He did everything he could to sabotage the Iran deal that was made with the US, UK, China, Russia, and France. 

Now Netanyahu has attacked Iran and is begging the US to join in the war.

Would this have happened if the Iran deal was still in effect? Probably, although the US would not be so eager to attack Iran if they were adhering to the deal. Netanyahu had already ordered attacks on Iran and the IDF said that was illegal. Since the Hamas terrorist attack the IDF was caught napping and now they are all in on the attack on Iran.

I think it would be a massive mistake for the US to join in the attack and a total disaster if American boots are put on the ground to fight Iran. Israel cannot fight Iran alone, Iran is twice the size of Texas with 90 million people. Israel cannot invade and conquer Iran. It would be foolish if the US was pulled into the war.

billpalto

This war came amount because Iran attacked Israel with terrorist groups for decades and now those terrorist groups are crippled, the scientists and the nuclear sites were just the opening target because duh but Israel wants to ensure Iran isn't in a position to support the proxy terrorist groups in the future. 

The reason it didn't happen sooner is just logistics, Israel never had a clear path to attack Iran until now, now that all the terrorists in the region have lost military capability and Syria has collapsed. Oct 7 lead to this war not pulling out of the nuclear deal that Iran wasn't following anyways.

FuturelessSociety

No.  I don’t think it would.  Trump ruins everything.

TeeVaPool

Not at all. The crazed right wingers have gotten their way. Now they have to believe Tulsi Gabbard is a liar or a fool. She has to be tossed aside like a piece of trash.

Ornery-Ticket834

Israel always despised the Iran deal and insisted they were violating it under our noses (never with enough evidence to actually cause anyone to act, confusingly enough).

For whatever reason, Trump seems to be following whatever instinct he has on this. And he seems to believe that regardless of the intelligence he's presented with or the lack of public evidence to his belief, that Iran is actively developing nuclear weapons. Which he doesn't want to happen, to the point he'll back Netanyahu's play on it.

So in any world that Trump entered office for the second time - even with an intact nuclear deal - no I don't think we avoid Israel opening up this conflict.

AmIRadBadOrJustSad

If we had done nothing, and continued with the Kerry - Blinken - Biden policy, one day we would have awoken to a nuclear powered Iran. Either by their testing or by a mushroom cloud in an area they don’t like. 

They were refining uranium to 60%.  There is no other purpose for that other developing a bomb. They have continues this throughout the Biden administration.  Actions signal intent. They had no intention of stopping and here we are. 

I take Death to America very seriously. 

Our response must be “You first!”  If it is hyperbole for domestic consumption, too bad. They chose poorly. 

I think regime change is warranted.  4 and 1/2 decades of Iran sponsored terror is enough.

Plenty-Ad7628

I think there were some valid criticisms of JCPOA but I don't think most critics of it were actually serious about replacing it with something that was realistic. They basically wanted to maintain sanctions in order to stifle Iran's support of its proxy groups and to *also* get rid of Iran's nuclear program. They may or may not have realized it at the time but that golden bullet "solution" they were referring to was war. The war we are seeing right now became inevitable once Trump unilaterally scrapped JCPOA.

Trump promised to replace it with a "better deal" as he does but Iran has no reason to think the US will uphold its end any more that we did after the first deal. If they scrap their nuclear program the US can just slap sanctions on them again right afterwards, that solution is no longer tenable

Sanctions didn't prevent Iran from arming its proxies, they didn't prevent October 7th, they didn't prevent Houthi attacks in the Red Sea. I would argue that lifting sanctions would have given Iran something big to lose, a taste of economic success and the power which comes with that. Would they still have enabled October 7th had JCPOA remained in place? Hard to say for sure but I don't think so.

I don't think Iran wants to become the next North Korea but if we insist on treating them like North Korea no matter what they do then it isn't leaving them a lot of options

DarthPineapple5

The deal okayed Iran to do everything but enrich uranium, there was a sunset clause for that too. What it means is that they kept all their nuclear expertise, build all the facilities, build all the ballistics, launchers, and trigger devices. The minute Trump pulled out, the first thing they did was violate the agreement and enrich uranium. Not to mention removing sanctions to fund their terrorist activities.


The deal was a naive attempt at kicking the can down the road.

kappacop

Anything Obama did must be eradicated. Iran’s nuclear deal, Paris Climate Accord, Virus rapid response team, Obamacare etc.

robembe

If we were still part of the deal, we could use Iran's violations as reasonable justification. Congress might have actually backed Trump.

Now, Israel went ahead and attacked first, so now Trump is backed into a corner between Israel, Iran and Russia and he's still trying to look like he's in charge. He's panicking and going to push the middle east into a war.

AutomaticMonk

Constant-Spite-2018

Ohhhhh, I totally forgot about the “giving money to Iran” aspect of the right’s bad-faith engagement on this particular topic. I remember thinking that it was only part of the argument because “they aren’t complying anyway” was such a weak position on its own.

Because sure, maybe Iran wasn’t complying. But the deal that Trump (ahem) nuked at least provided for a mechanism to try monitoring compliance. I know Trump and his zealots aren’t capable of understanding that international policy rarely has any total victories making it painstaking, requiring of compromise, and the ability truly negotiate. But this situation is a case study in why that method is superior to the wannabe strongman shit that Trump prefers.

So, no. The current iteration of hostilities between Iran and Israel wouldn’t be happening if for no other reason than Bibi’s claims about Iran’s nuclear program would’ve been a lot harder argue.

That said, as so many things within Trump’s orbit, his presence is a compounding factor. Aside from his unilateral withdrawal from JCPOA, he has helped facilitate a world where the effectiveness of a lie/truth is proportional to the force with which it is told and the individual’s willingness to double down in any circumstance. So even if Trump hadn’t killed the deal, his mere presence in the single most powerful elected office in the world means I think we’re still dealing with a post-truth society where someone like Bibi could have manufactured a pretense to strike as long as he was willing to stay the course, consequences be damned.

HoppyPhantom

I think it’s important to realize that Iran is not governed by peace-loving people who just want to get along and feel secure in the world. It’s like the Russians under Putin claiming they just want to feel secure as they invade one neighbor after another.

Iran is an expansionist religious dictatorship that wants to establish a caliphate over the Middle East and ultimately the world. They want control and conquest, not survival.

The “west” has a bad habit of assuming that peace and prosperity motivate everyone. The Iranian regime is happy to sign empty papers and tell the west what they want to hear. But its core goals haven’t changed. As long as the core regime remains, they use diplomacy to gain advantage, not to seek peaceful coexistence. Just like Putin.

Dunfalach

Israel has been claiming Iran is one year from making the bomb. For the past 20 years. Also. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And I have a bridge to sell you in Antarctica.

Yes, Iran was wokring on enriching Uranium. But before Trump, they were perfectly willing to give up both nuclear weapons ambitions and supporting various militias outside of their borders in exchange for easing and eventual lifting of the sanctions. After Trump double crossed them, things went back 20-30 years. We know they stopped enriching it, because Iran was under a very strict regime of inspections. There was exactly zero credible evidence they didn't keep their side of the deal.

One thing a lot of people don't ask is *why* Iran is hostile towards US. It used to be ally. The reason is that the US was propping up an extremely unpopular dictator, which eventually led to Iranian revolution and creation of current theocracy that ruled over Iran ever since. We did that shit all over the world back in 1960's and 1970's, with Iran being an extreme example where it spectacularly backfired.

DudeWithAnAxeToGrind

The US gave 6 billion dollars to Iran for humanitarian purposes in September 2023.  2 weeks later, Iran orchestrated the largest terrorist attack on Israel, ever.  Why are people arguing that the US should do anything whatsoever for Iran?

Legitimate-Dinner470

Probably, thought it likely would have longer to get to this point. Iran isn’t a government that can be appeased. As ill-suited as Trump’s tactics are for the vast majority of intentional relationship, it is the best way to handle a country that has been trying to nuke us for decades. Iran isn’t a government that can be appeased and wants to wipe us and 9 million Jews of the face of the earth

atamicbomb

I'm not sure you can call what is going on now a "war". Israel is conducting some of the most targeted strikes in history to cripple Iran's nuclear program with incredibly minimal risk to themselves and incredibly low collateral damage. To answer your question, no, if Kamala won the election our allies would have no confidence at all in US support and would not be able to act to preserve their own survival in the manner they are today. Thankfully she lost and terrorists and those funding them are paying the price instead.

StoicNaps

Trump has possibly a religious obsession with Israel that I don't understand. I think it's his Achilles heel.


We will never know because it may take longer than we will be alive to find out if what he has done (pulling out of the deal, the present stance on Iran) was and is the correct thing to do.


What politicians do is look back on history and project that upon us to gain our approval. It's the typical "if only we had done.... At the time, then X wouldn't have happened". It creates that wedge of doubt in our minds.


Personally, his obsession and most politicians obsession with Israel is frightening. No one country should ever take over our discourse as Israel has done. We act like a vassal of Israel.


We have a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. Just think of all the money we will now have to give Israel for rebuilding and defense. Imagine if that money went into social programs or was given to our poorer states to help their people.


I'm getting off topic. I don't support any one political party so I will end it here. 

atticus-fetch

The Obama nuclear deal you're wanting to trust the deal from the guy who literally destroyed the middle east in terms of stability by causing the overthrow of Syria Libya Egypt Jordan led to the rise of ISIS and couldn't even figure out how to fight them.  

Oh hell no from my house.  Obama was a walking clusterfuck in terms of the middle east.

ironeagle2006

Dry_Archer_7959

Iran never had an incentive to stop weapons development. The Obama deal was written by fools. All the benefits upfront in exchange for a pinky promise and some cursory inspections of a few sites. 

Iran sits on a sea of oil. It has no need at all to develop nuclear energy. Even If it did, it could buy approved amounts of enriched uranium and not run its own questionable enrichment program. It does not need the ability to do this itself and it allows for production beyond what they would need for a “reactor”.

No, Iran’s current leadership is not and has not been trustworthy. They have stated numerous times, in no uncertain terms, that their goal is the destruction of Israel. To blindly accept the “nothing to see here” statements from the people who chant “death to America” is dangerously ignorant. 

There is no doubt they are desperately pursuing nukes. If they had nuclear capabilities, I have no doubt they’d deploy them against Israel. 

If the terrible Obama deal had been left in place, we would be headed to nuclear war.

d2r_freak

Framing Trump’s position as just spiting Obama is silly.

It’s kind of important to note that the two entities that warned against the Iran nuclear deal were our two closest allies in the region: Israel and Saudi Arabia. Both had warned the deal was insufficient for security and Iran was a bad faith actor.

Immediately after sanctions under Obama were lifted, Iran increased its funding to proxy terror groups - Hamas / Hezbollah &amp; Houthi rebels, as well as heavy involvement in the Syrian civil war.

Obama offered some variant of “yeah well they were already funding terrorists so whatever, the choice is nuclear or non nuclear”.

The Iranian nuclear deal had super weak enforcement - military sites were off limits, inspections could be delayed by 24 days, and major restrictions on enrichment had expiration dates ranging from 8 to 15 years.

It looked like Iran basically accepted a few years delay in its nuclear program (but not abandonment) and just immediately went to power projection through funding terror and conventional war… which it was able to do with a stronger / less sanctioned economy.

The hope that Iran would change and kind of join the rest of the western aligned world with better economic conditions seemed to be hope, not strategy… there’s not much evidence it would have actually worked.

It’s somewhat unlikely that we would have seen the cracks in Ayatollah control over the country if Trump hadn’t pulled out and put sanctions back. The 2022 youth uprising was a signal of growing internal dissent and frustration with the regime that probably wouldn’t have existed otherwise.

If the nuclear deal stayed in place you would have had a more economically powerful Iran approaching the end of enrichment bans right now, ready to fast track whatever it was doing in secrecy for the previous years while funding terrorists.

Kman17

Besides, the reason stated in the question, there was another reason that Trump pulled out of the deal, because of the sunset clause:

After 15 years, all limits on enrichment would be removed, including limits on the type and number of centrifuges, Iran's stocks of enriched uranium, and enrichment sites. According to Belfer, at this point Iran could "expand its nuclear program to create more practical overt and covert nuclear weapons options. 

The deal never prevented I ran from developing nuclear weapons in the long-term. It is the general consensus for most civilized countries that Iran cannot obtain nuclear weapons.

joesnowblade

The JCPOA was really only designed to delay not end Iran’s Nuclear program. 

The main problem was “undeclared” sites. There is overwhelming proof Iran was hiding sites and not being fully transparent.

While the US probably should have just slapped the sanctions on rather than nerf the JCPOA by leaving it, in the grand scheme of things it was pretty pointless anyways. It was never designed to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, only delay it. 

I think what is more effecting why this is happening is the Global hate against Isreal. Not saying they are innocent in any way but there is a huge push to legitimize the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah and some seemingly incompetent people are giving them a platform.  This antisemitism has given Iran the opportunity to act out and advance greatly. 

Now if the US destroys Fordow that will set them back decades and be far more effective in preventing them getting nukes than any accord or deal.

randompossum

If we were on the original Obama plan Iran would already have nukes and we would likely have experienced some nuclear holocaust.

In what way was the Iran deal good for anyone but Iran?

Pattonator70

 The Guardian is an extreme left wing media. They continue to leave out important information to make sure their bias is what their audience sees.

AtoZagain

The IRGC is becoming more radical and the cult of Mahdism is rising. Iran has been disrupting the Middle East more and more through its proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Assad, etc.). The war already began for Iran years ago. Sure, Trump canceling the deal may have altered the timeline, but Iran’s objectives haven’t changed.

yeetspeylove

I straight up don't believe that deal did anything meaningful to stop nuclear weapons production. It was a feel good measure but it gave them advanced notice of inspections and time to hide anything they were doing that was unacceptable all while making it far easier for them to get what they needed to eventually have a nuclear weapon.

I don't agree with the strike by Isreal and I don't want a war with Iran. Having said that the last thing this planet needs is a nuclear capable Iran.

Wraith-723

The deal wasn’t worth the paper it was written on and Iran wasn’t living up to it anyway.  They were and still would be enriching uranium well past allowable limits.  

The only thing that would have prevented this is allowing them to make nukes and to use them at free will.

RiverCityWoodwork

Yes.  The JCPOA had a sunset of 10 years and no provisions to actually stop anything.  It was a 10 year pause to kick the can down the road.

Affectionate-Bite109

Well this wasn't on my bingo card. The left defending Iran. Insanity.

harley97797997

Yes, because Iran cheated on the agreement from the beginning and Biden and Obama both gave Iran billions of dollars to boot.

CapeMOGuy

Iran literally never followed the nuclear deal to begin with, so why are we all acting like it was anything substantial to pull out of it?

Rhomya

Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).


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

AutoModerator

Probably not given the circumstances, but it may not have mattered longterm anyway.

Interesting-Gear-392

I guess it depends on if you believe Iran was going to follow their side of things.

revengeappendage


Attacking them is worthless and there should be a no sanction approach cause Iran has suffered a lot of betrayal from US and US-Israel backed proxies like ISIS, Al Qaeda and Iraqi militias has caused grave harm to them. US funded an 8 year war to destabilize Iran but it made the regime stronger than ever.

Iran always said they don’t want nukes, they enriched to 60% because they want the US to lay back on sanctions as a negotiating tactic.

Iran didn’t backstab and kill Israeli or American generals and chiefs or scientists.

Israel did that, US did that. Trump killed Qasem soleimani when he came to Baghdad for negotiations. Why did he do that? How can you expect countries to negotiate when US deals in bad faith. Just currently, America’s rogue dog couldn’t keep his leash on and attacked Iran UNPROVOKED when there was negotiations on Sunday in Oman. Israel killed 80+ Civilians the first strike, killed members of Leadership without any goddamn reason.

If I were the leader of Iran I’d have built that bomb and I’d have told America to go fuck off. And this is coming from an American.

Just right now, there’s B2-Bomber spotted in Israel. So imagine you’re entering Iran territory with your stealth fighter to bomb the shit out of their facilities. America has no right to do that.

Diplomacy was always going strong until Trump did crazy shit.

I REPEAT, If Pakistan could have Nukes, IRAN COULD ALSO GET NUKES IF THEY WANTED. BUT THEY DONT. It’s against “SHIA Islamic” belief system. Khamenei needs to give out a Fatwa in order for them to build it as they consider nukes as Destroyer of human race and its “Haram”

sabotroned

Layer7Admin

Iran wasn't doing their part anyway which means the whole agreement was pointless anyways.

[Atomic watchdog says Iran not complying with nuclear safeguards](https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164291)

[Lack of cooperation from Iran hampers nuclear checks, says atomic energy watchdog](https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164166) 

The point is they were never playing by the rules. If they agreed it was all lip service.

GreatSoulLord

Yes it was a good move to leave the deal.

&gt;The deal included robust and unprecedented inspection and verification measures by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure Iran's compliance, granting inspectors access to declared nuclear facilities, the supply chain, and potentially undeclared sites.

In the words of Joe Biden... come on man. Calling the inspections "robust" is ludicrous. They had to notify Iran weeks (24 days) ahead of time, and they couldn't go to sites Iran said were "non-nuclear". Those provisions made the inspections totally worthless.

Most importantly, the deal allowed Iran to build the expertise and knowledge base it needed to eventually make weapons. This is something that can't be mitigated with inspections.

&gt;2. If you felt the deal wasn't good enough, was something better than nothing?

No, absolutely not. What we have now is better - a crippled Iran that's on the brink of collapse.

Inumnient

&gt;with some estimates suggesting it has enough highly enriched uranium to produce multiple nuclear explosive devices

Where are these estimates and by who exactly?

NoVacancyHI

You mention as a “key provision” that the deal included monitoring by the IAEA, but we handicapped them so heavily they may as well not have bothered going to Iran anyways. 

We ended up conceding on “anywhere, anytime” access for IAEA and being restricted to “declared” nuclear sites, with Iran having right of refusal for other sites. 

Without anywhere anytime access, there was no reason to even make the deal. Of course the IAEA was going to certify Iran’s compliance, as Iran would just not declare the actual enrichment sites and comply at the declared enrichment sites. We basically gave sanctions breaks and got nothing in return.

jayzfanacc

[deleted]

The heart of the problem is that the agreement needed to be a treaty, but such a treaty would never have been ratified by the Senate.  

That was a severe constitutional defect.  The executive branch can negotiate treaties, it cannot enter into them unilaterally.  

I also think it was remarkably foolish given just how unpopular the treaty would have been with congress and how few votes it would have garnered in the Senate.  

You seem to have also asked about the content of the agreement, whether that seemed beneficial for the US in general, unrelated to problems with the constitutional process.  

My opinion is it seemed fine.  Any nation with a functional nuclear energy industry also has a functional pipeline to nuclear bomb production.  It's almost like how any country which can make chemical fertilizer can also make mustard gas.  Same physics and same chemistry, respectfully.  The only realistic goal was to get Iran on board with having the capability but not exercising it, the way Japan, Italy, South Korea, and many other countries have the capability but do not exercise it.  The agreement seemed like a rational path towards that end, and, in hindsight, it's really a huge mistake that we didn't give it a shot.  

But, again, the severe constitutional flaws I think doomed it regardless of how good an idea it might have been.

rcglinsk

We gave them cash and they funded terrorist. A lesson I've learned in life is to not deal with immoral people. 

random_guy00214

You would have to be pretty naive and gullible to believe that Iran was going to abide by any of it.

worldisbraindead

Not only should Iran get nukes, but it should be their primary and only objective right now, and the same goes for every country surrounding Israel. In a world where the zionist entity exists no country in the middle east have real sovereignty until they nuke up.

AfterAd7666

Israel shouldn’t be allowed to have nuclear weapons but here we are. As long as Israel has nuclear weapons, I cannot oppose ANY state in the region for wanting their own. Israel doesn’t have the right to be the sole nuclear power in the Middle East.

Intelligent-Nose-948

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

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

If I were Iran, I would do everything possible to appease Trump, no matter how untrustworthy he might be. Trump is about to face massive backlash from his unpopular tariff plan, and a war with Iran would be too easy a distraction for the public.

Iran's position isn't terribly good either, better lay low and regroup rather than getting deeper into a conflict with either Israel or US. But of course, one could hardly hope for a smart response from a religious authoritarian regime.

ImperiumRome

Nothing's gonna come out if this. International relations require some basic amount of trust - y'know the other party to an agreement needs to trust you'll keep your end if the bargain 

After Trump withdrew from the original deal for literally no reason what reason do the Iranians have to trust any agreement made with America? And that's not even getting into all the other stuff going on like Iran's system of proxies collapsing

Completegibberishyes

I don't think Trump wants war with Iran. If anything he'll look the other way and let Israel take care of business. Trump doesn't want a forever war on his watch. Plus he's made a pivot to China, hence his reluctance to assist Ukraine.

chi-Ill_Act_3575

I imagine these will go about as well as his "The Ukraine war will be over 24 hours after I take office" talks that have been going on for a few months now.

RespectedPath

“Iran knows it doesn’t need to listen to TACO as he isn’t gonna do shit.”
FTFY

nevreknowsbest

The art of the deal guy finding it difficult to make deals?

National-Charity-435

If only we already has one before trump took office...

Vast-Bouncer

A waste of time, talking to a president who TACO every other day.

Wildcardz1

European diplomats are engaging in critical talks with Iran's Foreign Minister amid escalating tensions following military conflicts involving Israeli airstrikes on Iranian sites.

Iran Nuclear Talks

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want