Public sentiment surrounding Iran's nuclear program is mixed, with a notable divide between those supporting Iran's right to nuclear capabilities, viewing it as a necessary deterrent against foreign aggression, and those expressing concern over potential nuclear proliferation and regional instability. Criticism of U.S. policies, particularly under former President Trump, is prevalent, with many commenters perceiving hypocrisy in nuclear policies and fearing the ramifications of a nuclear-armed Iran.

Iran

United States

Israel


Iran is fighting for dominance in the Muslim world, and destroying Israel would make them the undisputed champion in the Islamic world since Salah ad-Din.

Other Muslim states won't be sorry for Israel's destruction. They will be very sorry how come they haven't achieved it themselves. 

The iranian regime also truly believes in the existence of paradise for those who die for Allah. 

That's why Iran has declared their intention to destroy Israel. They urged other Arab and Muslim countries to do so, while also declaring that it's Iran's moral and religious duty to do so.

Their pursue for nuclear weapons was to achive just that, quote: "If one day the Islamic world equips itself with weapons like Israel has, then the imperialist strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything, while it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality", (Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's president from 1989 to 1997, during a speech for Quds Day 2001)


For decades, Iran has attacked Israel via proxies. The use of proxies was literally because they don't have nuclear weapons, so they can't strong-arm Israel into submission using direct attack by conventional weapons. Nuclear capability was Israel's insurance policy against annihilation even though Iran is much bigger in size and population. 

Once Iran gets a nuclear weapon, everything changes: although there is a small chance that Iran will nuke Israel unprovoked, Israel will now be under constant and real existential threat.

Once Iran and Israel both have nuclear equal footing, Iran can continue conventional war with Israel indirectly via proxies or even directly if needed while knowing that Iran's size and larger population will eventually be in their favor. 

In addition, Iran can arm its proxies with small nuclear arms, non-state organizations without an official "return address."

The entire Middle East would enter a nuclear arms race that will eventually leak to other non-state terror organizations, and some of them really aren't afraid of set the world on fire.

shimadon

Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It has agreed not to develop nuclear weapons, and consequently not to enrich uranium beyond the levels necessary for civilian energy production. It was found in violation of those terms. So Iran has broken an agreement that it made itself with all the other nations who are signatories to the NPT. 


If there are no consequences to violating an agreement, then the agreement might as well not exist, and *every* signatory should then have the right to develop nuclear weapons.


But the more nations have access to nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that even one of those weapons falls into the wrong hands: a non-governmental, distributed organization (as many paramilitary organizations are) that doesn't have to fear mutually-assured destruction, and so lacks the primary incentive against using a nuclear weapon. This could then trigger a cascade of nuclear weapons being used, which would damage *every* nation on Earth. So it's in *every* nation's interest to avoid proliferation, and that means abiding by the NPT and enforcing it when signatories do not comply. 


As for Israel: Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. It likely acquired nuclear capability before the treaty was finalized in 1968, and so can't really be said to be in violation of the treaty, either explicitly or implicitly.

Thumatingra

Mutually assured destruction has previously been the deterrent against use of wmd- the idea that any use of nuclear weapons is bad for the user because any use would result in retaliation and the destruction of the state that uses them. It’s a tenuous situation but is one that has thus far kept civilization in tact. 
The difference with Iran is that the current regime in Iran is a theocracy, one that espouses a faith that believes martyrdom is a positive thing for their people. 
In this case, the rules of mutually assured destruction do not hold- the government can make the decision that the death of all of their citizens is martyrdom and is ultimately good under this logic. 
For this reason their situation is different from other non theocratic countries that currently have nuclear weapons and their attainment of nuclear weapons would create a situation where the use of nuclear weapons is much more likely.

highhound

Saudi Arabia doesn't have nukes. Israel isn't doing things like taking over Lebanon with proxy groups(and they tried the same in Iraq).


How do nuclear weapons counter their influence?


Intimidating your neighbors can actually be very bad.


There is nothing stopping the House of Saud from getting nukes once Iran has them.

daoistic

Any country that has threatened on multiple occasions to destroy another with nuclear weapons should not have nuclear weapons, and it should be up to the most powerful and respected countries in the world to enforce this and protect the smaller and less respected countries.

_Fletch-F-Fletch_

Iran has openly stated they will use nukes to offensively strike and murder Jews in Israel. 

They are the only country in history to admit they want to use their nukes first for offensive purposes.

PairBroad1763

Your chain of logic implicitly assumes that Iran countering Israeli influence in the Middle East is a good/desirable thing. Can you explain that assertion further? Without it, the rest of your logic doesn't work.

Kerostasis

Parity isn’t a desirable thing. The desirable thing is civilization. More countries having nukes is generally worse for that; but a country like Israel is the best option if one were to have it.

This new age idea that power must be balanced is actually a dead end street. In an ideal world we should want the most just and moral society to hold the most power. The only reason to temper that is that power corrupts and can be destabilizing if concentrated. There’s no intrinsic reason to spread out power - there’s more of an intrinsic reason to unify and unite.

Lastly, China, India, Pakistan are not regularly in the business of inciting total destruction. They’re not Islamist nations with an explicit goal of bringing jihad upon the world. They’re also countries that understand MAD, and don’t believe in martyrdom as a valid line of thought.

OneNoteToRead

&gt;Precedent states that when India, China and Pakistan were developing nuclear weapons, they weren't met with such hostility as having their nuclear leadership and infrastructure wiped out.

Because some were needed strategically, like isreal. In the view of the US these are effectively US nukes. You give strategic reasosn why they'd be wanted. There are strategic reasons from the rest of the world, or a massive portion of it, for preventing an unstable actor from getting nuclear capabilities. 

There is no "right" clearly.

&gt;but America, UNO, IAEA don't get to decide who to give an upper hand in game theory

Of course they do. Like there isn't any "right" to them. If you CAN be stopped, they you had no "right" to them to begin with.

eggs-benedryl

International politics is the rule of the jungle.

If countries with the means to strike Iran don't want Iran to develop weapons of mass destruction, then that's all what matters.

"rights" as you're describing them simply don't exist in the way you think they do.

&gt;

\&gt; Iranian Nuclear Proliferation is essential to counter Saudi and Israeli influence in the Middle East.

Counter balancing Saudi Arabia and Israel isn't a necessity or requirement at all. If anything, Saudi Arabia and Iran being on relatively equal, balanced terms, fighting for influence in the middle east has resulted in numerous proxy wars, like Syria and Yemen.

Why would giving Iran Nuclear Weapons, while Saudi Arabia doesn't have nukes, result in more peace? It'll only result in Saudi Arabia seeking nukes and won't have any impact on their proxy wars. If anything, Saudi Arabia being the defacto-dominate Arab nation would arguably lead to greater peace.

soggybiscuit93

Iran signed the Treaty on the Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1968. Article II of that Treaty states: 

&gt; Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; *not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;* and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

So long as they remain signatories, they do not have the right. They explicitly gave it up.

FerdinandTheGiant

I'm going to try to change your view on the last paragraph rather than whether Iran has the right to nuclear weapons. Of course Iran has that right, they're a sovereign country. They can do what they want.

However, that applies to the U.S., Israel, and the Sauds as well. Iran has the right to build nuclear weapons and other countries have the right to perceive that as a threat and act against them. If those countries have the power to do so, then they do decide who has the upper hand and there's not much Iran can do about it.

Unfortunately, rights don't defend themselves. Vae victis.

laosurvey

The MAD principle is that of two giants wrestling at the lip of a volcano, if one falls, they both die. Neither want that.

That's how we have  ations with nukes and yet no nuclear war, israel has been attacked repeatedly and isnt threatening to use its nukes.

Iran is run by fanatics whom we can thank for Islamic suicide bombing.

They are happy to fall into the volcano as taking the other giant with them gains them paradise.

Nukes should be reduced but if we can't, they must stay only with rational actors, Iran leadership revels in not being that.

So no.

syriaca

Iran has right to develop nuclear weapons 

Same way  Israel has right to stop its enemies who chant for destruction of Israel from acquiring nukes for its own safety

iL0veLittleGirl

You could argue that a lot of countries have the right to, but if the ultimate aim is less nuclear weapons in the world, the right to possessing them isn't enough. If it were, then you may as well forget about deproliferation and make it a free for all. Who knows, it may just be crazy enough to work. But if we're not prepared to entrust the future of the pieces to volatility, the only way is down, which is why it's about more than having the right. It's about trust.

Who decides who can or can't be trusted? The global community deserves a say, but the world is not a democracy. This is why we are left with the US acting as a defacto sheriff. It's far from ideal, but it's not an entirely unearned position. The US and Allies earned the responsibility by defeating two of the most evil regimes in history 80 years ago. 

The US has certainly abused the position ever since, but it's not like anyone else capable of doing the job was showering themselves in glory. They were all too busy committing atrocities. So who else? NATO need to be more involved, but they're also more of the same. Russia is at war, India are decades away. China would be ideal if they continue to establish themselves as a positive influence in Asia - starting with Taiwa - and the world. As a BRICS nation, they would provide much needed balance working alongside the US.

Would Iran be confident of fairer treatment from a fellow BRICS member working alongside the US? 

They're still not getting their nukes, but China's increased responsibility and supervision would help assist parity in the ME. In this scenario, your first 3 concerns are addressed. 4 and 5 are somewhat moot, as if Iran had nuclear weapons, the scenario would have played out years ago. As for 5, you're talking about a completely different world.

Trust also means security. Countries need to be trusted not to use these weapons but also to keep them from falling into the wrong hands. Any nation susceptible to revolution, uprisings ,coups, etc. can therefore not be trusted. Nor can nations known to fund and arm proxies. I'm on record as having an optimistic view on Iran for the last year or so. I've felt like they've been making baby steps, perhaps influenced by the success of other Islamic nations who have inched towasfs secularism. Unfortunately, my optimism may have been misguided. 

Regardless of who started what, Iran has shown they can not be trusted with this kind of power. Say what you want about Israel. They've had the means to wipe out everyone around them for 60 years now. The fact that they haven't counts for something. The same goes for the rest, too.

TLDR, more nukes aren't the answer, and Iran can not be trusted at this point. Change to global order is a safer solution for all, and if China is capable of playing their part, they provide the solution to your main concerns

sincsinckp

Israel has a right to stop them. Iran has threatened to use nukes agaisnt Israel and has hit it with countless attacks from proxy forces and directly to a lesser extent.

So whether Iran has the right to nukes or not Israel has the right to stop them

FuturelessSociety

Iran has signed the NPT, so no. Case closed. Even Iranian clerics have declared nukes "un-islamic", so as islamic theocracy they have no right to them from their own point of view (from the past).

Fabulous-Suspect-72

They signed a treaty pledging not to, and for years reaped the benefits of that treaty.  So literally no they don't have that right, they chose to give it up

Falernum

&gt; Precedent states that when India, China and Pakistan were developing nuclear weapons, they weren't met with such hostility as having their nuclear leadership and infrastructure wiped out.

India, China and Pakistan Weren’t (notably in India and Pakistan’s cases- still aren’t) signatories of the UN NPT, while Iran has been a signatory since 1968, thus they are held to a different standard.

&gt; Iranian Nuclear Weapons are the only way to restore parity in the Middle East and ensure lasting peace on terms agreeable to both sides.

Iran’s stated reason for wanting Nuclear weapons- is explicitly to *use* them on Israel and the US, thus allowing them to continue development would ensure only a specific type of peace long term.

&gt; It is highly likely that Israel is in possession of nuclear weapons in violation of internationally agreed principles of non proliferation.

Yes, Israel is in possession of Nuclear weapons, they are not however in violation of the UN NPT- as they never signed it.

BackseatCowwatcher

Groomy_

I don't think many really disagree with this opinion, the reason it's controversial because it justifies war against Iran because of their rhetoric and military posturing. They have long taken the stance of wiping Israel off the map and have pursued missile technology to strike Israel as well as fund Hamas and Hezbollah to conduct militant campaigns against the country. So, because Iran has not expressed a desire to peacefully co-exist, that's the justification for the warfare that we see break out.

Israel took a similar stance to Iraq when they attempted a nuclear program while maintaining a similar posture.

IT_ServiceDesk

I'm entirely against the Israeli war on Iran, but America should have been working to prevent Iran from making the nukes through diplomacy. Iran is a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy, an evil of the US's own making. Having nukes makes an internal revolution much more challenging for the people and more dangerous for the rest of the world. Imagine what would happen if the Islamic Republic were overthrown, but the revolution lost track of the nukes; they could be anywhere, which means that they would be extremely dangerous everywhere. Overall, it's safest for the world if Iran doesn't have nukes. Still, truthfully, the US and Israelis have shown themselves to be unreliable negotiators, so the idea of Iran agreeing to any more treaties is dead in the water unless the US and Israel agree to move heaven and earth.

Rahul200714

Simple, terrorism is bad. Nuclear terrorism is super bad

Accomplished_Flan295

We need less countries to have nukes, this just leads to more and more countries having nukes. 

The more countries that have nukes the more likely it is someone will use them. 

Countries like Pakistan, North Korea, Israel should never have gotten nukes and should have gotten the reaction Iran is getting now

Even-Ad-9930

To have this opinion you must have no understanding of other cultures and politics.  Not everyone thinks the same way you do.  Not everyone holds the same values.

LambDaddyDev

&gt;but America, UNO, IAEA don't get to decide who to give an upper hand in game theory

Do you understand that a 'theory' is derived to explain a  set of facts?

lew_traveler

It's likely that the "doctrine of deference" won't hold in the case of the Iranian regime. 

Watch what [Matthew Syed](https://youtu.be/J1cNfkJvyLs?si=4o7k21stBnzT7q3x) has to say about this topic to understand why Iran does NOT have the right to nuclear weapons.

Iran is a proven state sponsor of terrorism and is an existential threat to the interests of the USA and many other countries. They choose to be an adversary and live with the consequences.

AdAgitated8109

In 2015, Iran voluntarily agreed to what is known as the "Iran Nuclear Deal" that stated, among other things, that Iran would not attempt to produce nuclear weapons, or enrich uranium to the point it could be used in nuclear weapons.

1. nukes are not needed against saudi arabia.
3. nuclear weapons are not the ONLY way to ensure lasting peace
4. Iran is not innocent, and it doesn't matter which side "started" it anymore. Israel is known for lying to justify wars.

badlyagingmillenial

&gt;It is highly likely that Israel is in possession of nuclear weapons in violation of internationally agreed principles of non proliferation.

Why do you think JFK was murdered? He was trying to force enrichment inspections in Israel. 

&gt;Precedent states that when India, China and Pakistan were developing nuclear weapons, they weren't met with such hostility

None of them wanted to destroy Israel.

10thAmdAbsolutist

Not surprised, this whole debacle has likely legitimized the need to finish for them so they stop getting bothered

RememberTooSmile

Man, they’re really committed to building a nuclear power plant to combat global warming.

Lawineer

Well no shit. They now have all the more reason to do so

donkeynutsandtits

Meanwhile MAGA is still doing victory laps.

III00Z102BO

North Korea showed that if a country want sovereignty, it needs a nuke.  India showed that you can pretend long  to only want nuke material for peaceful reasons, until the last minute when you make a bomb..

sugar_addict002

Electricengineer

Alarming-Research-42

Retire_Trade_3007

MAGA dupes I'm running into IRL are basically full neocon now. This shit is hilarious. Tulsi Gabbard should just retire from public life at this point, the humiliation is practically complete. GWB Part 2.

DataCassette

So much winning! You guys get your DOGE check yet?

NewInMontreal

I wonder if trump supports regime changes now lol

Additional-Brief-273

This comes behind the “great victory” announcement of 14 missiles fired at a US base, all of which doing absolutely nothing.

Eighteen64

Say what you want, they do have brass balls. 

These strikes are business as usual, in my opinion. Without looking up exact dates it's been around fifty years of this "cold war" with frequent strikes by USA and Israel.

I don't think we are allowed to know the real reason, if it's the "nuclear program" we know how to eliminate it, and it's a lot of soldiers, like Vietnam-level mobilization with Israeli soldiers too. But, that would be very costly. 

But less costly than nuclear strikes would be?

TK-369

ginapaulo77

goldtank123

rvbeachguy

PrizePermission9432

Well that is surely going to upset Trump. Especially after he called for a cease fire he's going to have to break his own rules. Maybe he'll acknowledge to the camera that he as well doesn't know what the fuck he's doing

It's unfortunate because now Iran has so much more internal support to develop warheads instead of just nuclear energy facilities

pandershrek

If some big country bombed ne, I'd definitely try to make nukes asap. Or buy some.

KissMyAlien

relentlessoldman

When two nuclear powers start bombing a country, it probably doesn’t deter them from having nuclear powers themselves.

They’re going to want to be able to better defend themselves.

jediporcupine

Since Trump just jumps to the next thing to distract us from his failures, I'm guessing this weekend we will start annexing Canada since Carney believes Trump no longer wants to? Gotta show Carney we mean business!! /s

feelsbad2

KEMPEC-1701D

Irans Parliament also voted to close the straights of Hormuz…. I’d take this statement with a grain of salt

No_Consideration4594

Iran says a lot of BS if you haven’t noticed

Amars78

Romegaheuerling

Embarrassing for America Military that failed

primaboy1

On the most basic level, it would secure Iran’s borders indefinitely.  They would never be invaded, full stop.

As far as second-third order effects go, Iran would be able to focus energy back into their proxy non-state actor network, and Israel would be limited to playing whack-a-mole against terrorist orgs.  Worst case scenario would be Iran providing a dirty bomb to a proxy that is motivated to decapitate the Israeli state, unencumbered by geopolitical risks/concerns.

tonyray

I agree that it could go either way. On the one hand, a nuclear Iran doesn't need proxies, and furthermore, that strategy has been exposed as extremely flawed (none of their proxies are doing much for them at the moment). On the other hand though, a nuclear Iran with a vast arsenal of ballistic missiles would have greater freedom to impose its will. Given the age of the current supreme leader, it's even harder to predict. 

However, there are three other consequences to consider. One is secondary proliferation. Saudi Arabia has often said of Iran gets the bomb, they're going for it too. Maybe, with improved relations they'll back off on that, but I don't know if relations have improved that much. The second issue is internal stability. The government is unpopular and could fall. If that happens with nuclear weapons there's a chance of a non state actor getting nuclear weapons. 

Third, and this applies to ANY nuclear state, is the fear of a madman. Sooner or later an insane leader will take hold of a nuclear armed state and do something irrational. The greater the number of nuclear states, the greater that odds that such a wrong person gets that power. Since Iran is likely to bring the Saudis into the nuclear club, the odds are doubled. 

Having said that, I would have preferred to see a diplomatic solution.

kantmeout

Pakistan has never used its nukes, despite its intense rivalry with India and constant conflict with militant groups. Why would Iran do that? They are not suicidal. If anything, the Iranian regime might have just committed suicide by \*not\* having nuclear weapons.

Simple-Tart6727

I think a big part of the issue is no one really knows the answer to this question, especially because of Iran’s rhetoric over the past decades. 

Specifically, the leaders of the nation regularly call for the destruction of the state of Israel and that they will not tolerate a Jewish state in the region - that may be all talk, but it’s also possible that the fundamentalists in Iran mean this stuff literally. 

Under normal, logical circumstances, MAD essentially dictates that a nuclear power won’t strike another nuclear power because the retaliation will leave both countries worse off. If Iran had a more logically consistent government and military, I think most would expect North Korea v2: Essentially nukes as an insurance policy against conventional attacks from stronger neighbors, that also get waived around for potential offensive use - but is treated casually by international audiences because of how insane that would be. 

The issue with Iran is that Israel (right or wrong) feels compelled to treat Iran’s rhetoric as literal to some degree. They clearly have determined that there is a non zero chance of a first strike by Iran if they have the capability to do so. That’s really the problem of being a fundamentalist religious dictatorship - eventually the outside world will take your religious messages literally, even if it was just supposed to be internal propaganda.

argentina_turner

Nuclear weapons anywhere are primarily considered to be defensive and protect against invasion. I find it unlikely that Israel would use them against Iran or vice versa, especially considering that no one knows whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons or how close they are to getting them. It would be unprecedented in world history to use nuclear arms in a regional conflict, though I have no doubt that Israel and Iran will continue to use various missiles and other weapons.

Actual_Nothing988

&gt; Now I'm not a massive proponent of nuclear peace theory, but seem people seem to be making a weird sort of automatic assumption that Iranian nuclear break out would result in automatic nuclear attacks on Israel or the like.

its a combination of propaganda and ignorance. there isn't much else to it

magkruppe

The US does not negotiate on Israel’s security needs, real or imagined. Never mind that the Ayatollah himself issued a fatwa on nuclear weapons use or that during the treaty no uranium was enriched. I see the nuclear deterrence mostly being to ease sanctions. Anyway, do we really need a reason to Libyanize a country?

atav1k

I agree with your analysis. 

I think Israel, a country which has largely enjoyed technological military superiority in the region, is probably surprised to some extent as to Iranian strike capabilities. 

I suppose the question I have is that if they are so aggressive as to be chomping at the bit to use a non-conventional weapon, why have they mostly avoided escalating tensions with their obvious conventional capability? They have, at this point, proven they can cause a lot of problems for Israel. Further, if you believe Israeli and American BDA reports, they were able to disable some of Iran's capabilities in the first strike. If this is so, you'd think that this hyper aggressive death cult Muslim nation would be firing everything they had at the first sign of a possible Israeli strike, but that's not what happened.

SpasticReflex007

israel is a lot more likely to use a nuke than Iran, they're a lunatic country

[deleted]

It’s pretty clear what they want. They want safety and to be untouchable because they feel Israel is a threat to their survival.

And they want regional influence and a cut of the oil money before the rest of the world transitions off of oil and gas.

I also think the media overplays their relationship with Hamas. Hamas is a Sunni organization that they support because they want a Muslim Palestine but it’s very much an independent organization. They didn’t “order” the Oct 7 attacks. And it’s likely not the case that they checked in with Iran either. They can’t physically arm Hamas. They support them politically

That’s not the case with the ideologically linked proxies which are the Houthis, the Iraqi Shiite militias and Hezbollah which are their “true” proxies and which they directly arm.

Sokkawater10

I doubt a nuclear armed Iran would let up their proxy war on Israel, given they commenced proxy war against Israel without direct provocation from Israel, and persisted despite Israel supporting them in against Iraq. It's clear that Iranian ideological hostility against Israel prevail over most traditional national interests.

ScoobyGDSTi

I think Israel has been vilified to the point where a nuclear surprise attack, designed to wipe out its population and military such that there can be no retaliation, is completely feasible. Some would condemn it, but many would support. They'd call it 'Defensive genocide' as a genocide committed to prevent further genocide in Gaza. The U.N. would pass a resolution hoping for the complete abolishment of nuclear weapons and hoping they never be used, without singling out Iran by name. In short, I think Israel had every right to worry that a nuclear Iran would destroy it.

rightswrites

I feel as though the impact is bad even if Iran doesn't instantly attach them to an ICBM and fire them at Israel. 

Israel will either start their own nuclear program or unveil their already existing one. Many of Iran's neighbors don't like them and would purpose their own nuclear program including places like Saudi Arabia. 

So what you'll end up with is basically what we have now--a volatile powder keg but now everyone has nukes

Aware-Computer4550

Iran already threatened to give the Houthies nukes.


But regardless, Iran is continuously attacking Israel with their proxies, why should Israel allow them to have nukes?

FreddieMoners

Israel is literally saving the world. Iran won't have nuclear weapon 

Medium_Prior4739

The "for the first time in 20 years" bit must be a little confusing if someone has been listening to the guys screaming "Iran's about to finish a nuke and kill us all" for  the last 30 years or so.

Vegetable-College-17

The massice elephant in the room is that Israel has an undisclosed amount of nukes and refuses to abide by any nuclear non-proliferation treaties

bakeandjake

&gt;...some have claimed that they are covertly developing nuclear weapons...

You mean the development of WMDs haven't been substantiated and so we invade?

mizu-no-oto

Iran had an agreement with the US to not develop nuclear weapons. 

In Trumps first term he left that agreement and carried out an unprovoked attack and assassination within Iran’s borders. 

Now Iran doesn’t want to enter a new agreement. Go figure

WebBorn2622

The use of retaliate here is clumbsy. The IAEA did not attack Iran. In response, or perhaps even more simply "following these findings..."

DrawPitiful6103

This is the first time I think a Wikipedia post is full of crap. 

I'm not buying the "suddenly they broke their agreement"

This feels like someone trying to justify Israel/ Americas new boondoggle war trump started

raistan77

I was confused for a second what IKEA had to do with this

CrumbCakesAndCola

In case others aren't aware of the concerted campaign by pro-Israel groups to use wikipedia to reproduce their own propaganda - [https://electronicintifada.net/content/ei-exclusive-pro-israel-groups-plan-rewrite-history-wikipedia/7472](https://electronicintifada.net/content/ei-exclusive-pro-israel-groups-plan-rewrite-history-wikipedia/7472)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia\_Signpost/2008-05-19/Wikilobbying](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-05-19/Wikilobbying)

CookieRelative8621

Right before a negotiation. It's almost like they were putting something on the table to negotiate with.

tuesday-next22

The only reason inspectors are in Iran is because Iran is a signatory to the NPT. Israel is not. Israel is a rogue nuclear state that’s also been committing genocide for over 18 months.

ryguy4136

Common-Muffin-546

[Link to (I think?) said report](https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-25.pdf)

(or at least a recent report from the IAEA regarding their suspicions on Iran being non complaint or not 100% truthful about their nuclear activities)

Fantastic_Photo6134

Iran - we're not making nuke grade uranium

IAEA - we think you might be

Iran - okay, well, now we're gonna! &gt;:(

Jammem6969

Lmao zionist apologists having a hard time in a sub where people actually read

letsgobernie

I mean yeah, of course they restarted their program, that was the obvious consequence everyone knew would happen when Trump tore up the JCPOA.

And everyone in the Iranian government who was pushing to develop a nuke ASAP has been 100% vindicated. They would have been safe and the US never would have done this had they gotten one in time. The US has clearly taught every state in the world a lesson, and it isn’t the one they think it is.

ILikeTheNewBridge

Lots of hate for Israel etc on here of course but not one person can tell me a good reason for Iran having a nuclear weapon. They'd use it on Israel and Saudi Arabia and we'd see inflation chaos across the world. Nobody wants that. It's best such a dangerous government doesn't have any

nostalgebra

All dumbasses worldwide need to start asking why Israel has illegally stockpiled nukes... Isn't that much more of a factual basis upon which to investigate?

1984SKIN

**Current status and recent escalations (2025–)
Main articles: 2025 United States–Iran negotiations and June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran**

In January 2025, it was reported that Iran is developing long-range missile technology under the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), with some designs based on North Korean models. According to the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), these missiles, such as the Ghaem-100 and Simorgh, could carry nuclear warheads and reach targets as far as 3,000 km away, including parts of Europe.[66]  

In March 2025, US President Donald Trump sent a letter to Iran seeking to reopen negotiations.[67][68][69] Ayatollah Ali Khamenei later said, "Some bullying governments insist on negotiations not to resolve issues but to impose their own expectations," which was seen as in response to the letter.[70][71][72]

In April 2025, Trump revealed that Iran had decided to undertake talks with the United States for an agreement over its nuclear program.[73] On 12 April, both countries held their first high-level meeting in Oman,[74] followed by a second meeting on 19 April in Italy.[75] On May 16, Trump sent Iran an offer and said they have to move quickly or else bad things would happen.[76][77] On May 17, Khamenei condemned Trump, saying that he lied about wanting peace and that he was not worth responding to, calling the US demands "outrageous nonsense."[78] Khamenei also reiterated that Israel is a "cancerous tumour" that must be uprooted.[79]

On May 31, 2025, IAEA reported that Iran had sharply increased its stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% purity, just below weapons-grade, reaching over 408 kilograms, a nearly 50% rise since February.[80] The agency warned that this amount is enough for multiple nuclear weapons if further enriched. It also noted that Iran remains the only non-nuclear-weapon state to produce such material, calling the situation a "serious concern."[80] In June 2025, the NCRI said Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons through a new program called the "Kavir Plan". According to the NCRI, the new project involves six sites in Semnan province working on warheads and related technology, succeeding the previous AMAD Project.[81][82]

On June 10, Trump stated in that Iran was becoming "much more aggressive" in the negotiations.[83] On 11 June, the Iranian regime threatened US bases in the Middle East, with Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh stating, "If a conflict is imposed on us... all US bases are within our reach, and we will boldly target them in host countries."[84] The US embassy in Iraq evacuated all personnel.[85][86][87] The Iran-backed Yemen-based Houthi movement threatened to attack the United States if a strike on Iran were to occur.[88][89] CENTCOM presented a wide range of military options for an attack on Iran.[90] UK issued threat advisory for ships on Arabian Gulf.[91] US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told Congress that Iran was attempting a nuclear breakout.[92]

On 12 June 2025, IAEA found Iran non-compliant with its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years.[16] Iran retaliated by announcing it would launch a new enrichment site and install advanced centrifuges.[18] On the night of June 13, Israel has initiated Operation Rising Lion, a large‑scale aerial assault targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, missile factories, military sites, and commanders across cities including Tehran and Natanz.[93][94]

On June 21, the US bombed the Fordow uranium enrichment facility, the Natanz nuclear facility, and the Isfahan nuclear technology center

rulepanic

ComplexWrangler1346

Jihadist regime should never put their hands on an nuclear bomb

Bast-beast

The religious ethnostate that kills kids vs the theocratic state that kills kids. 

Feel free to rally the numbers and let me know which one has the higher score. (Hint: it’s Netanyahu)

Strange-Half-2344

It's hard to say for certain.  But the thing I'm clinging to is that I just don't see Israel agreeing to a cease fire, while dominating Iran,  unless their nuclear capacity war severely diminished.

SprinklesMore8471

Most news sites that reported on the initial leak failed to mention that the report in question was marked as both preliminary and low confidence.  It was not meant for public consumption, and it was blown up to be more than it was.

I do find it somewhat interesting that the Director of National Intelligence was at least somewhat against the idea that Iran was building towards a nuke, was promptly attacked by Trump and then was not brought into the situation room during the air strikes despite all of the other national security bosses being there.   Then, after the strikes, an agency under her control leaked this low confidence report that casts doubt on the strikes she likely wasn't a fan of.

cathbadh

IMO, the most compelling evidence that the INP was severely damaged is that neither Israel nor Iran has said anything, and both of them would want to make the damage look less bad than it is. If it was true that we basically just scratched them, Netanyahu would be begging for another round of B2s and the Ayatollah would be flexing.

Sabertooth767

There is a very wide range of truths to choose from on this subject. Very few people can know for certain.

Begle1

Israeli intelligence suggested the same. I think their input is way more valuable only because they have the greatest motivation to play down the damage assessment if there’s even a chance they didn’t destroy it. Their whole reputation is trying to get more US involvement and ultimately destroy the regime, I don’t see them agreeing to a ceasefire and seemingly not pushing hard for more US involvement unless they really had something to go off of that suggested the damage was severe.

Exact_Accident_2343

Recent analyses explore Iran's resilience and strategic positioning following military strikes against its interests. The implications for regional security dynamics are under scrutiny.

Iran's Nuclear Program and Regional Influence

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want