Public sentiment regarding the Iran Nuclear Deal Tensions is highly polarized. There is substantial support for Iran's defensive stance against perceived Western injustices, with many lauding Iranian voices for their articulate perspectives. At the same time, concerns arise regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions and the implications for regional stability, particularly concerning Israel. This duality reflects a complex narrative where appreciation for Iran's resilience coexists with fears of military escalation, misinformation, and the humanitarian impact of ongoing conflicts.

Iran

United States

Israel

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


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

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

revengeappendage

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

**User Profile &amp; Activity Stats for u/TearRepresentative56**

*   **Account Age**: 3 years
*   **Cake Day**: June 26, 2021
*   **Post Karma**: 154,768
*   **Comment Karma**: 16,019

**Activity In r/swingtrading**
*   **First Seen**: 1 month ago 
*   **Total Submissions**: 5
*   **Total Comments**: 18
---
This post has received **0** reports so far.


---

*The purpose of this bot is to provide transparency and help identify legitimate accounts from spammers, bots, fake accounts, and marketers. This comment will be updated if reports are received.*

[Join Our Discord](https://discord.gg/yWFavAVQpm) | [Subreddit Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/swingtrading/wiki/rules)

SwingScout_Bot

Zalanox

Nice write up, I have a simple buy oil/defense short Airlines strategy implemented premarket with about 10% of my portfolio. 

I’ll also use any dips to add to my long term positions.

Big-Individual9895

Great post. Thanks for sharing. I am watching energy , PCG, if it gets into mid 13 range I will buy. 

**Starter comment**

President Trump says says that the US is not looking for a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Instead, it’s looking for Iran’s “complete surrender“. He says he’s ”not in the mood to negotiate” with Iran, after the expiry of his 60-day ultimatum to Iran, during which nuclear deal negotiations were fruitless. Instead, he wants a “real end” to its nuclear program, with no more uranium enrichment.

The statement comes as Trump heads to the Situation Room (not the one with Wolf Blitzer) to meet with top national security advisers over the Israel-Iran conflict. He cut short his trip to Canada for the annual G7 meeting in order to return to Washington for the meeting. He said that this was done in order to discuss the issue confidentially, without the use of telephones.

He previously stated on social media that the population of Tehran should immediately evacuate the city for their own safety. He later stated to reporters that ”you’re going to find out over the next two days”. Find out what, I don’t know.

He says that Iran cannot be allowed to acquire a nuclear bomb.

**Discussion question:**

When do you believe this Iran-Israel battle will end? Will it end with a ceasefire before Israel achieves its stated goals?

200-inch-cock

As of 30 minutes ago, Trump essentially threatened to kill the Supreme Leader of Iran if there is no unconditional surrender, citing that he knows exactly where he is hiding.

CraftZ49

Iran is entering the second half of FAFO after decades of funding terrorism and negotiating in bad faith.

Obvious_Pumpkin_4821

The casus belli of this entire confrontation is that Iran is close to developing a nuke. Has Israel or US intelligence presented any evidence to this effect?

Obviously, Iran has been developing a nuclear program for a long time, but why strike now? I'm hoping to see something concrete, rather than vague references in off-the-cuff sound bytes.

Lelo_B

I think rightfully so too.

I think people need to come to terms with the reality that a ceasefire in either Palestine or Iran is little more than just allowing Hamas and Iran to rearm without fear of being attacked by Israel.  I see no good reason we should just allow that.  

This can’t go on forever.  At some point real change is going to have to come about.

-Boston-Terrier-

Oh man, I can't wait to talk 20 years later about how bad of an idea this was, and how we should have stopped this from happening. No, seriously. I can't wait. Because, and maybe I'm really pessimistic here, I don't see how this doesn't turn out to be any different from Iraq.

PrideTrooperLorax

Like it or not but the lesson that was learned from the Ukraine war is that having nukes will keep you from being invaded.

Iran will now keep working towards a nuke because they believe it's the one way to keep sovereignty. 

Even bombing their nuclear program will only delay it. 

The only way to actually stop it will be a complete regime change which requires boots on the ground

alotofironsinthefire

Good. Iran needs to be stopped, and any reprieve is an opportunity for them to make progress on the bomb.

Sabertooth767

Israel about to flatten Iran like they did with Gaza. Glad my family made it out decades ago but i feel for all the people there and my friends with family still there. 

Are we still calling Trump the dove of peace?

spaceorkz

If only there was a diplomatic solution. A sort of Iran Nuclear Deal, if you will.

Remote-Molasses6192

Iran has gotten more bold in the last few years. Oct 7th, houthis firing on ships, etc. It makes absolutely sense for Trump 2.0 to come in and do something decisive. Most of the "backlash" is manufactured. Most people want the Shia Muslims gone. Heck most people in Iran want them gone.

Flat_Health_5206

I understand the sentiment, but it's impossible. No peace deal is going to fix the underlying incompatibility of Israel vs. Muslim people/countries. Religion's involved, and that throws out logical solutions.

MacGuffinRoyale

Tulsi Gabbard said Iran isn't working on a nuke less than 3 months ago.


This is just a story Israel is floating to gather support for its actions against Iran.

Sad-Commission-999

No new wars....promises made, promises kept!

dc_based_traveler

&gt;WW3

Not a shot in hell. Iran is not a great power and their only ally worth a damn is China, which is very limited in its ability to intervene for a number of reasons (even if it even wanted to meddle in this). 


A world war is necessarily characterized by there being (at least) two network of alliances betwen states independently capable of projecting power across multiple theaters. Iran fails to dominate even its immediate neighbors.


&gt;Iranian response


Probably the same thing they did last time: send waves of drones and missiles, fund militant groups (though recently these groups have fallen on hard times). 

Iran is utterly incapable of fighting an actual *war* against Israel, and frankly the same is true vice-versa unless the US was involved.

Trump when asked if the negotiations were still on: Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb and we are hoping to get back to the negotiating table. We will see. There are several people in leadership that will not be coming back

raouldukehst

WW3?!?! The Middle East has been at war for like forever.

DandierChip

Boy what I would give to be a fly on the wall in the pentagon. What a nightmare.

gasplugsetting3

&gt;not given the greenlight by us 

We definitely knew it was coming, evacuated an embassy, diverted AA munitions, we knew.

-M-o-X-

I just got back from my deployment to the Middle East. Can we not right now? 

I’m pretty sure the average person in America is getting pretty fatigued about all of these endless wars.

Pilotskybird86

Iran must be prevented from developing a nuclear weapon at all costs. Their leaders are religious fundamentalists who believe that martyrdom is a guarantee to reach paradise in the afterlife, and thus would have no problem surrendering the world to nuclear war. Additionally, they also cannot be trusted to not supply these nuclear weapons to their proxies in Yemen, Gaza, and elsewhere.

The US "didnt give the public" green light.

The US from a military standpoint is globally connected to everyone and 100% knew and worked with Israel.

LonelyDawg7

It looks like Israel is attempting the only long term solution available to it - collapsing the regime.

robotical712

It might be presumptive, but this could be the high water mark of the Trump administration.

One of his major accomplishments of his first term (and that he didn't receive nearly enough credit for) was the push towards normalization for Israel in the Middle East.

Neutering Iran, and unleashing Israel to end the Palestinian conflict (as controversial as it may be, the peace will last longer than the war), could cool the Middle East. Meanwhile, Russia is showing just how hapless they would be against a proper military, and China is facing a dwindling window (technologically and demographically) to ever attack Taiwan

Trump inadvertently (or through 4D chess) causing our enemies to blow themselves up and lead to peace is certainly interesting.

reno2mahesendejo

How can it be WW3 when Iran is such a weak nation? Only another world superpower can trigger WW3. Iran is barely a country.

Correct-Caregiver750

&gt;BREAKING: Intel suggests all of Iran’s general staff, including the head of the military were eliminated in tonight’s strikes by Israel, per CNN

https://x.com/unusual_whales/status/1933334545711182226

God speed to Israel's military. Hopefully the additional waves will be even more productive at neutering Iran's ability to wage war and continue marching towards a nuclear weapon.

WorksInIT

Can't wait for liberals to fly the Iran flag now

EquivalentLittle545

Retaliate with what? They've been firing their puny rockets at Israel for years (some themselves and most via their proxies). Almost none of them even reach Israel. And the ones that do can't get past the defenses.

Israel and trying to drag us into their wars. 

Name a more iconic duo.

haunted_cheesecake

Honest question from someone who isn't intimately familiar with the middle east, how is it reasonable for the US and Israel to tell Iran it can't have nuclear weapons? Given the way countries in the last decades without nukes have been treated, even those like Ukraine that supposedly have guarantees for safety from nuclear nations in exchange for not having their own nuclear programs, it seems to me that any given nation would be wise to have a nuclear program to deter existential threats to their nation. 

I completely understand why the US and Israel do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. That is crystal clear. I don't understand what leg they have to stand on to tell Iran they can't have them though and will enforce that directive with kinetic interventions.

doff87

Captain_Jmon

Ultimately it's another Tuesday in the middle east for anyone familiar wuth that situation. The only people in my family worried for Israel are those who believe Ezekiel 38 somehow involves Russia, Iran, and Turkey invading Israel. Russia is burning through its own population just to rough woo Ukraine back. Iran is nothing more than a punching bag/Israel's stress doll at this point. And I don't think Erdogan is crazy enough to risk anything.


My hot take on the matter is just to leave Israel to do its thing. They look like they can handle themselves given their biggest threats are clearly not immune to being blasted to smithereens.

VenatorAngel

if Iran defends itself are they going to call that antisemitism?

KeySea7727

Of course Trump and the US gave the greenlight for this!

Trumps latest words:

'*I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to "just do it," but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn't get it done. I told them it would be much worse than anything they know, anticipated, or were told, that the United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it, with much more to come - And they know how to use it.'*

Sounds like Israel did exactly what Trump wanted to force this deal. Classic stick and the deal is just another stick disguised as a carrot. Big stick or little stick is the choice here.

HorrorDeparture7988

Tough days ahead for Israel. Hope they’ll get through it. Wishing everyone in Israel, and in Iran, to stay safe.

knign

So much for Trump promising peace, eh America?

MagicBulletin91

Great gas prices will go up, if Iran feels cornered then even a simple attack in the straight would be catastrophic for the global economy.

burnaboy_233

Brilliant_Garden1104

A US attack on Iran is obvious and close because Iran is obviously totally controlled by the CIA. Say it with me:

_Secret services only serve the interests of thy enemy_  
(and Iran is a plaything in the IRGC's hands - these intelligence spooks will do everything for American interests, even unto death)

Adunaiii

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, only the US pulled out of the deal and they still had audits after. The deal ends in October of this year. The deal is the reason they are where they are at now.

JCPOA was originally agreed upon in 2015 by Iran, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union.

Fattyman2020

Iran has suspended cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency following US and Israeli airstrikes on its nuclear facilities, heightening international tensions.

Iran Nuclear Deal Tensions

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want