Public sentiment regarding the Iran nuclear deal is deeply divided, reflecting significant frustration and skepticism towards the U.S. and its allies. While some comments express support for Iran's right to pursue nuclear energy and criticize perceived hypocrisy in international policies, others express concern about Iran's nuclear ambitions and the efficacy of international negotiations. There is a strong feeling of distrust in both the motivations of the U.S. and the peace processes, highlighting fears of potential military escalation and calls for more diplomatic engagement.

United States

Iran

Israel

[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

Violators will be fed to the bear.

---

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

AutoModerator

Director of National Intelligence 25 March 2025, testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee:
"The IC (Intelligence Community) continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003. The IC is closely monitoring if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program."
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/congressional-testimonies/congressional-testimonies-2025/4059-ata-opening-statement-as-prepared

Through Trump's first 110 days in 2025 he only attended 12 of his DAILY security briefs. 
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/09/trump-intelligence-briefing-frequency-00338946

The assessment of U.S. intelligence is that Iran has not been pursuing Nuclear weapons. However Trump doesn't appear to trust and or care for what the U.S. the Intelligence community has to say. Trump fired his National Security Advisor Michael Walz on May 1st and essentially did away with the Cabinet position placing Sec of State Marco Rubio in charge of it. 

The OP asks if preserving the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal would have prevented direct U.S. use of force in Iran. I think the answer is clearly 'No'. The objectives of the deal have remained intact. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and wasn't developing them. Moreover Trump's decisions do not appear driven by U.S. Intelligence considering he seldom participates in briefs and doesn't communicate directly with Intelligence officials. 

Unfortunately Trump is combative with Journalists. So asking Trump why he chose to do this now or where he is getting his information from is a fools errand. Military incursions are life and death matters. People died last night. The American people should really demand more from the President than tweets and flag emojis.

8to24

The purpose of the 2015 Iran deal was exactly to prevent this kind of situation. Sure, the deal only slowed Iran's nuclear progress rather than completely ended it. But the only way to completely end their nuclear program would be to assassinate their nuclear scientists and bomb their nuclear refineries, and the whole point is to NOT do that. Plus, the Iran deal validated an emerging moderate political faction and weakness the theocratic side of the government, so the hope was that even if Iran DID eventually get nukes, maybe by then Iran could be a genuine ally in the region thanks to the warming relations the Iran deal provided. 

If that deal stayed in place, we have a very different foreign policy position in the middle east. It was genuinely one of the most high upside foreign policy achievements of my lifetime. The Trumpian approach to Iran basically forces Iran into an ideological enemy and pushes them into military conflicts with us and our allies, which also validates and empowers the theocratic regime. It's the most shortsighted and status quo approach possible, which all but guarantees there will be no actual movement towards peace. 

The only points in favor of Trump's approach are that the conflict being set up is probably winnable, ties with Israel are stronger than ever, and Iran's nuclear capabilities are probably most delayed. But is Israel really that good of an ally if they keep forcing us into military conflicts and destabilizing the region? And history has shown that we can't delay nuclear capabilities indefinitely, and wouldn't we rather Iran more or less like us when they do finally get that bomb online? And who cares if the war is winnable when we could just not have the war at all?

mormagils

I actually think so. Under the deal Iran still had a nuclear program but had limited their enrichment to 3.67%. Since the US withdrew from the deal Iran has gone to 60% enrichment. So I understand that intelligence agencies are saying that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon program but there is not a legitimate civilian reason to enrich uranium to that level according to the IAEA.

Goldeneagle41

Yes it could. Pro-Israeli's will of course try to twist this in every way possible that it won't and war was inevitable, but the truth is Trump's action is the main reason we are here now.

CarefulScreen9459

I think if Hamas never attacks Israel in October 2023 this doesn’t happens. Israel essentially wiped out all of hamas and hezbollahs infrastructure because of said attack, whom Iran funds. With their chief allies rendered irrelevant against Israel, Iran was wide open for attack with little response possible. From this perspective Iran brought the attack on itself. 

But does the attack against Israel happen of the deal wasn’t ripped up? Maybe eventually at a later date, but we’ll never know now.

Dropping_A_Deuce

Probably, although the timing might have been different. From Israel's POV, there are actually two primary threats: Iran's nuclear program and their missile program. Besides what another poster mentioned on the deals limitations on the nuclear issue, it did nothing to address the missiles. Reports are that Iran had set a target to ramp up its missile production to build an arsenal of 10,000 missiles which could reach Israel, which basically make a nuke kind of redundant in the case of an attack on Israel. Given 7/10 - which Iran helped plan, although they apparently didn't know Sinwar was going to launch it when he did, Iran's support of Hizbullah's and the Houthi's attacks as well as the two Iranian missile attacks on Israel last year, Israel isn't currently in the mood to assume Iran doesn’t really mean to destroy it when it's hathering the means to do so.

eyl569

I think voting for a bit of sanity and stability would have stopped the war but we left that behind

maybeafarmer

Considering the IAEA declaration earlier this month that Iran was in breech of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran ratified in 1970, it is doubtful the US withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) had much affect.  Earlier this month, Iran also announced that it would start building 6-generation centrifuges at an undisclosed location.  The only conceivable use for those 6-generation centrifuges would be to manufacture fissile material for nuclear weapons.  There is also evidence that Iran has been refining at levels very close to weapons grade.

[https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/06/12/iaea-declares-iran-in-breach-of-nuclear-nonproliferation-obligations/](https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/06/12/iaea-declares-iran-in-breach-of-nuclear-nonproliferation-obligations/)

Tulsi Gabbard’s statements about Iran may have been confusing.  There was some nuance to Tulsi Gabbard’s testimony on Iran’s nuclear program to Congress.  After she stated that "Iran is not building a nuclear weapon”, Tulsi Gabbard went on to testify "Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons."  The most challenging aspect of a nuclear weapons program is refining the fissile material.

It is also doubtful that Iran would try to assemble a nuclear weapon without a viable delivery system which they don't have.   Evidence indicates that Iran is still refining below weapons grade but there isn't a legitimate peaceful use for Iran's current enriched uranium stockpiles.  Press reports indicate that Iran has enough uranium to produce about 10 nuclear warheads.  

While there doesn't appear to be evidence that Iran is in the process of assembling nuclear warheads, there is no other legitimate purpose for the highly-enriched uranium that they are producing.  IAEA (and SIPRI) says Iran has enriched uranium up to 60% which is about 12x the enrichment required for most nuclear power reactors.  You could go up to 20% enrichment in some reactors, but generally most reactors use &lt;5% enriched uranium.  The 2015 JCPOA limited Iran's uranium enrichment to 3.67%.  In my opinion, it’s doubtful that Iran was in compliance with the JCPOA considering how rapidly they’ve supposedly progressed in uranium enrichment since the US withdrew from the agreement.

  
[https://www.sipri.org/commentary/essay/2021/why-iran-producing-60-cent-enriched-uranium](https://www.sipri.org/commentary/essay/2021/why-iran-producing-60-cent-enriched-uranium)  

More concerning than the US intelligence assessment was, arguably, the IAEA declaration on 12 June 2025 that Iran breached its nuclear nonproliferation obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) which Iran agreed to in 1970.  The NPT is much less restrictive than the JCPOA.  On 12 June, the IAEA stated that "Iran had consistently failed to provide information about undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple locations"  Iran responded by announcing "that it will inaugurate a new enrichment facility at a secure, undisclosed location and replace its first-generation centrifuges at the Fordow enrichment facility with sixth-generation centrifuges."  

Considering that Iran is known to have &gt;60% enriched uranium, Iran's statement that it would build sixth generation centrifuges at an undisclosed location was highly provocative.  Israel attacked Iran the next day.  

There have also been other indicators of that Iran already had the ability to refine past 60%.  In 2023, the IAEA found traces of 83.7% highly enriched uranium (HEU) at Fordow.  Iran basically responded that they'd made it by accident.   (See pages 8 &amp; 9 of the link below.)  Need to get to about 90% HEU to build a nuclear weapon - so 83.7% is pretty close. 

[https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/gov2023-8.pdf](https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/gov2023-8.pdf)

Pompous_One

The ideal situation at this point is for the overthrow of the regime. That wouldn't have been possible under the JCPOA.

sirswantepalm

No it was a delaying measure for his opportunity to destroy hezbollah aside and hamas

FrogsEverywhere

Moot point because Trump went and tore up the agreement. Trump couldn’t stand the thought of Obama, a black man, brokering the deal. So I guess we’ll never know, because here and now we’re at war with Iran, and who knows what other countries are going to step into the ring next.

theanchorist

Imo no. They were getting help on the side from Russia, and those guys have broken every deal they've signed. What makes you think the Ayatollah of Iran would actually follow through?

Sebt1890

No.

Because Iran is and was to working to advance their nuclear bomb plan, and all the deal would have done is slow them down, not degrade it - which means they would be closer now than in 2015 - and eventually an intelligent mistake or clever ruse would let them go past the threshold and doom us to nuclear terrorism and blackmail

YnotBbrave

The reality is that the nuclear deal wasn't even particularly relevant. Israel started this war, and they did so based on a lie. They maintained that lie over the past several decades, even while the deal was in effect. I don't see any reason to believe Israel would not have continued lying.

KevinCarbonara

No.  Trump based this attack on vibes or orders from Netanyahu.  It certainly wasn't evidenced based or anything like that.  We know that he doesn't believe intelligence, and we know further that he doesn't read or get intelligence briefings anyways.

Stopper33

I think Israel would always have attacked Iran at some point while Trump was President. Netanyahu was always opposed to the deal and he knows exactly how to play Trump. If for some reason Trump didn’t revoke the deal then I think Israel would still have attacked Iran, knowing that ultimately they’d have American backing despite the deal.

SlightlyOTT

It very much depends on who you ask and what you believe.  

Thus far my experience has been that the answer people give to your question is highly correlated with their political predispositions, which is just to say that you are very unlikely to receive an unbiased and wholly objective answer here.  

I myself want to say that the JPCOA was working and would have saved us from the current moment of crisis, but I have to be wary of my biases and at least consider that I may not be taking the opposition's arguments as seriously as I should.  

And that's admittedly not easy.  

Nor is it at all psychologically comfortable for me to admit that the Trump administration --although granted, railroaded into it by the Israelis-- may have actually done the right thing in bombing Iranian Nuclear facilities, almost in spite of themselves and their incompetence.  

But here we are.  

Reality doesn't give a fuck about our feelings, so our job as responsible citizens is to figure out what actually makes sense whether it agrees with out preconceicved notions or not.

serpentjaguar

lol, no - Netanyahu got permission to start the war from Trump, nothing would have changed - they are always days away from a nuke, or hours, or they are hiding WMDs or they helped 9/11. etc etc.

LocationUpstairs771

Sorry, just entering in.. But, to me, the 2015 Proliferation Deal was for the rest of Obama's Term....sorry kids...but we needed to keep our country with enough supporters to keep the once source of energy for Iran. Let me now say this, I DO NOT SUPPORT VIOLENCE; however, this is America. New Reins want it their way so we have to conform to those again, even if it's inconsistent. But it's a strategic tactic aligned with many others, By Golly, it works. Good and the bad.  Periodt. We need the dominance, that what's this country represents. As he has stated "Greast country in the universe". Check this one: Had we left it play, we probably might end up still fighting. Crude oil is #1, nuclear is damn near, do the math. Someone is creating new terms and agreements. 

Take it out, let this play out. You never know....Two birds might not have to die. Or maybe, I still be doing up my at home. 

But we going to war...we going...

#webroke
#weneedmoney
#theeconomy

May sounds weird, but that how it popped out.

VeekaVeeks



Apparently before the deal they were lying to inspectors, I doubt they were 100% honest after the deal.   (cits 1,2,3)

&gt;My question is this: Would Israel and the U.S. be doing direct attacks against Iran if this deal was still in place?

Israel has long wanted to bomb Iran, before the deal, after the deal, not having faith in Iran to obey by the terms. 

(cit 4) 

  
I don't trust Iran, and I don't trust Israel  the only things I trust either country on, is when they say they want to attack / destroy each other. 

I didn't immediately think bombing Iran was a good thing or a bad thing.   I'm still not sure.   Iran getting a nuke would be bad.  bombing Iran also seems like its bad.  



1.  [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/28/iran-lied-un-inspectors-qom-nuclear](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/28/iran-lied-un-inspectors-qom-nuclear)
2. [https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/delayed-inspections-jcpoa-provisions-for-iaea-access-to-suspicious-sites/](https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/delayed-inspections-jcpoa-provisions-for-iaea-access-to-suspicious-sites/)
3. [https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-iran-nuclear-20170830-story.html](https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-iran-nuclear-20170830-story.html)
4. [https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/24/world/meast/iran-israel](https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/24/world/meast/iran-israel)

discourse_friendly

Allowing Iran to have nuclear arms development as a bargaining chip was an extremely weak play to begin with.  It never should have happened.  At least the outcome we have now isn’t a nuclear Iran.  And let’s be honest, the dismantling of their program was always the goal.  Whether achieved peacefully or militarily.

dendron01

The 2015 Iran nuclear deal only limited Iran’s ability to enrich for 10-15 years.

So if the nuclear deal stayed in place, Iran would be steering enrichment now-ish with any sort of treaties preventing them from doing so.

Now of course part of the reason Trump, Israel, and Saudi Arabia criticized the deal is because inspectors could be denied access to military facilities, and delayed inspection into civilian by 24 days.

So the inspection process would only slow a bad-faith signatory (which Iran most certainly is).

Implicit in the 2015 deal is the hope that Iran would have softened its tone in that time, and gotten a bit closer to the west with the economic advantages.

There isn’t a lot of evidence in that hope as a strategy, because almost immediately after sanctions were lifted Iran upped its funding of its proxy terror groups in Hezbollah / Hamas / Houthis.

To believe we wouldn’t have a problem means basically need to believe that Iran would have bought in in spirit, not just malicious compliance.

The forcing function here was Iran’s proxy groups going from “annoyance” to “existential threat”.

Part of the reason Hamas has felt emboldened to attack Israel is because stupid western liberals fell for Palestinian propaganda in the 2014 Gaza war, so they thought they could repeat it under another democratic president that would too waver in response while they blast TikTok with misinformation and narratives.

That seemed likely to happen either way.

This is just as much about moving the battleground from Tel Aviv and the straight of Hormuz back to Iran and holding them accountable as it is about the nuclear program.

Kman17

Israel engaged in a first strike against Iran, then spent $285m per day on air defense when Iran responded, then whined about it to the US and asked for Trump to do Trump things. The thought that a treaty would have stopped lawless imperialists is laughable.

aworldwithoutshrimp

Yes and no.

It would have prevented a direct US excuse to become involved. 

But any president can just make up an excuse, as we have seen. And Israel would have still pressured each of our presidents for a regime change war, escalating exchanges with Iran until we hurry to save Israel from the hole it dig itself.

Kronzypantz

Trump treats everything like it is a New York real estate deal from the 1980s.

Steve Witkoff, who was Trump’s representative negotiating with Iran in April, had no experience with nuclear issues. Witkoff is an old friend of Trump and a real estate developer. I heard this on the New York Times podcast called “the Daily” that had an episode in April that explained this. Here’s a link to that episode: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0MtGRg9hziBLHVbpWa5vJx?si=vSbSPK51SBu64r3LI40USw

This podcast explained how the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), often referred to as the Iran nuclear deal, was a multilateral agreement between Iran and several world powers (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, and Germany) reached in 2015. The agreement aimed to limit Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. President Obama was instrumental in negotiating the JCPOA. President Trump, however, withdrew the U.S. from the deal in 2018, citing concerns about Iran's compliance. Trump withdrew from this deal and created the conditions that lead to yesterday’s bombing. Of course, Fox News is blaming Biden for the failure of these negotiations but it is clear that Trump was  just willing to give 2 months to negotiate a nuclear deal. But since Trump walked away from the last deal, there was very little reason for Iran to agree to a deal with Trump in 2 months. The U.S. is now engaged in military conflict in Middle East because Trump could not negotiate a deal like Obama did. Or maybe Trump didn’t really want to negotiate. Yesterday’s military action was of result of Trump’s inability to negotiate like Obama did.

MilfordSparrow

Simple answer is no. I am 55 yrs old and Gaza has been part of the news cycle for my entire lifetime. There has been and always will be conflict in that region with everyone fighting over some scrap of land considered special. If they haven't been able to resolve the religious, political conflict in 4000 yrs, I doubt a modern day signed treaty will.

Responsible_Rock_573

The 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) wasn’t perfect, but it was working. Iran’s nuclear program was being monitored, enrichment was capped, and diplomacy was still on the table.

Then Trump pulled the U.S. out in 2018 — against the advice of most experts and allies — and everything unraveled. Iran resumed enrichment, tensions escalated, and the region edged closer to direct conflict.

Without the deal, there were fewer guardrails, less communication, and more room for provocation — from *all* sides.

So no, the deal wouldn’t have solved every problem. But it definitely could’ve prevented us from landing exactly where we are now: on the edge of another war nobody asked for.

Middle-Name-2739

Iran wasn’t the problem with the JCPOA.  The problem was the asshole Republicans and Likud who wanted it to fail.

harrumphstan

That’s a really important question. It seems like the breakdown of the deal removed some key diplomatic channels and increased tensions on all sides, which might have made the conflict harder to avoid.

Unfair-Ad1675

No. Bibi was literally two days away from his coalition falling apart because Orthodox Jews are exempt from the draft and he wanted to change that.

The Iranian crisis was a desperate bid to avoid getting destroyed first in Parliament then the ballot box.

So far it's working.

SunderedValley

If nothing else, if the JCPOA were still in place, the IAEA would know exactly what Iran had been doing.  The system of monitoring and inspection made it next to impossible for Iran to cheat.

MJcorrieviewer

My understanding is when the jcpoa was still in force, US intelligence, as well as the intelligence services of our allies, all agreed that Iran had not enriched uranium past 3.5%. it was not until after Trump walked away from the deal that Iran started enriching uranium past that point. It is important to note, however, that they never enriched uranium to the 90% necessary for nuclear weapons. In other words, Iran never started enriching uranium past what was needed for domestic nuclear energy (2-4%) until Trump tanked the jcpoa. So no, we would not be here otherwise.

SinisterBarrister

Possibly. On the Iranian side, the JCPOA was being pushed by the moderates led by president Rouhani, with the backing of the Reformists opposition movement (a pro-democracy movement run by regime dissidents that pushes for a peaceful reform of the regime through participation in elections), who had helped get him elected. The idea behind the deal was to give guarantee they would not make a bomb in exchange for removing the economic sanctions.

And Iran had already started implemented their part of the deal when Trump tore it up, destroying the Arak nuclear reactor core for example, so when Trump reneged on it, it was seen as a betrayal and destroyed the power of the moderates inside the Iranian regime for many years, allowing the hardliner Raisi to become president after Rouhani.

Ironically, the current Iranian president Pezeshkian is another moderate, again elected with the backing of the Reformists opposition movement last year after Raisi died in an accident. And they were again negotiating with Trump over the nuclear program when Israel attacked them by surprise. At that point, I doubt even the moderates or the Reformists would want to keep pushing for negotiations with the US.

If the JCPOA had not been torn up and Iran's economy had improved as a result of the end of the sanctions, it would have reinforced the power of the moderates inside the regime, and they could possibly have avoided the current conflict by keeping the hardliners under control, forcing them to cut links with the Hamas, and not enriched uranium beyond its peaceful usage of 3.67%. That would have removed all the excuses used by Israel to attack Iran.

But we will never know. And Trump and Netanyahu might have found another excuse to attack Iran anyway.

NekoCatSidhe

Simple answer?  Of course not.  That agreement would have allowed a nuclear weapon by this time.  Does that make any sense whatsoever?

mrjcall

Iran will never stop trying to get a nuclear weapon regardless of what people think. They are a theocracy and the western world doesn’t understand that.

redit0930

Probably yes, if Iran was in fact being honest about not pursuing the bomb which seems to have been true because Gabbard said they werent. Then she was left out in the cold and bullied to change her message.

petdoc1991

The only thing that could have prevented this is if Trump wasn't elected in 2016.

Everyone that was eligible to vote in the USA that didn't vote for HRC in 2016 and KH in 2024 is complicit. Trump was so obviously unqualified in 2016 that claims of "I didn't think it could be this bad" are embarrassing, the claim itself admits they thought Trump would be bad.

If we survive this, the country needs a reckoning. A political system that allows someone like Trump to enter its highest office is unsustainable and a threat to the entire world. Reforms are obviously needed.

InFearn0

The American intelligence community told Trump that Iran wasn't building Nukes.

I can't imagine a treaty from Iran stating they weren't gonna build nukes would hold many more water.

  
I'm not even sure electing Harris would have prevented this from happening.

  
Israel is a genocidal state with violent intent. They were gonna launch an unprompted strike on Iran at some point no matter what we did. And the American government was would be only too happy to back them up.

Reld720

Yes!  
  
I was thinking about this very question when I first heard the news.

Assuming the strikes were successful, all of this bombing has gotten us back to where we were in 2015 (without the inspections, of course).

The 2015 [JCPOA ](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-united-states/story?id=123020009)was typical of a deal you strike with an adversary. It accomplishes the goal, but nobody is fully happy. That's the nature of negotiation and compromise (the "art of the deal", if you will). That said, it was a good deal and arrived at *peacefully*.

I don't think Trump actually believed the Iran nuclear deal was bad (assuming he was even aware of the provisions). I get the impression that he was just blindly trying to undo everything that Obama had accomplished.  
  
Trump has a special hatred for Obama. I don't know to what extent it's a racial thing or whether he held a grudge after [Obama roasted him at the White House Correspondent's Dinner in 2011](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/watch-inside-the-night-president-obama-took-on-donald-trump/).

judge_mercer

[deleted]

I think we can also ponder if we didn’t just get a much better nuclear deal.

Here’s the new deal: we aren’t monitoring anything, we aren’t offering anything, we aren’t going to be leveraged or even worry about it at all. The next Iran deal will be how much of their oil fields are we taking

Israel has no reason to stop right now until Iran is finished

RCA2CE

I agree with the author that purely from the standpoint of civilian nuclear, there’s little sense in Iran insisting on keeping enrichment capacity. The costs of their civilian nuclear program have been huge and the civilian benefit has been minimal.

But setting aside the civilian use, I don’t really understand the author’s argument on why Iran would agree to give up their latent nuclear deterrent. This paragraph in particular was hard for me to understand:

&gt; Israeli bombing of the sites that support weaponization has likely delayed Iran’s ability to produce nuclear warheads to be mated to missiles, although it is uncertain by how much. A few crude bombs could be built without further enrichment to 90 percent by using the less-effective 60 percent enriched material, if any of it survived the Israeli and American attacks. But Iran has had the capability to sprint to a few bombs, which could be employed in a one-time attack or as a terrorist weapon, for perhaps two decades. It hasn’t done so and likely will not now, especially since it is in the crosshairs of and virtually defenseless against Israeli and American air attacks and deeply infiltrated by Israel intelligence services. We believe Iran was hedging its nuclear bets all along to amass a sufficiently large stockpile of bomb-grade uranium for missile-deliverable nuclear warheads to serve as a deterrent against Israel. Such a nuclear deterrent has been set back by many years.

The author seems to be downplaying the value of Iran’s latent nuclear deterrent, but I’m confused by the assertion that the nuclear warhead deterrent has been set back by “many years” despite starting the paragraph by acknowledging that we don’t know how much the strikes have set them back in their ability to make warheads. 

The author also acknowledges elsewhere that Iran may have retained its stockpile of 60% enriched uranium. And — to his credit since so many authors don’t seem to understand this — he also discusses how the remaining steps to the bomb (enriching 60-&gt;90, uranium conversion, weaponization research) don’t require massive infrastructure like Fordow and Natanz, but can be done in small hidden facilities and workshops. 

So in what way have they been set back many years? Best I can tell, the author is taking it as a given that Iran won’t race for a bomb while it’s in a vulnerable state like it is now. I’m not sure why they are so confident in that. 

Yes, the US and Israeli can inflict a lot of pain on Iran if they rush towards a bomb, but we can’t stop them. Airstrikes are very effective against massive facilities like Natanz and Fordow with thousands of centrifuges bolted to the ground, but much less effective when the target is 10,000 scientists spread out in small workshops and classrooms across the entire country. 

Maybe being in a vulnerable state like Iran is now, with your enemies bragging about how dominant their forces are, is exactly the time that you become willing to endure a few years of pain to get a nuclear weapon. 

________

The biggest hurdle I see in getting Iran to agree to zero enrichment is establishing the trust that would require. Such a deal would inevitably also require destroying or moving all of its highly enriched uranium to a third country, stopping production of new centrifuges and basically dismantling any remaining enrichment infrastructure. What happens if the very next day after they do that, Donald Trump (again) unilaterally rips up the nuclear deal and says “get punk’d idiots, sanctions are back on until you agree to more conditions.” Iran will have set itself back years from a nuclear deterrent in exchange for something the US and Israel can reverse at a moment’s notice. 

Between the US withdrawal and the Israeli surprise attack 2 days before negotiations were set to take place, Iran has little reason to trust the US and Israel would act in good faith. Retaining the capacity to enrich (capped to 3.67%) seems essential to any deal they might agree to, simply as a protection against another US withdrawal from the agreement. 

_____

Last thing I wanted to say about this article is that I don’t think they make any argument for why the US should insist on zero-enrichment. The author seems to acknowledge that Iran has been very hesitant to actually go nuclear and has mainly used the nuclear program as a latent deterrent, so what’s the harm in letting them keep enrichment up to 3.67%, assuming we have strict monitoring in place like the IAEA’s additional protocol? This is what Iran opened negotiations with back in April when speaking to the US envoy.

oskanta

ttown2011

I really can't see why Iran would. The US and Israel don't seem to want to invade, I can't imagine that making a deal with the US seems credible... So you need a regime backstop which is a nuke, just need to test one.

Neowarcloud

If they want to maintain any semblance of sovereignty, they absolutely should not agree to that lol

dpavlicko

From a realpolitik pov, I don't know why they would do that. Trump randomly thrashed the prior deal that they were in compliance with. Russia and China won't shield them if Trump decides to do a regime change....They could have sold them a nuclear warhead ages ago for permanent deterrence as well. The fact that Kim Dynasty sits so comfortably and Ukraine/Iraq was invaded on lies doesn't really leave a good reason for them to recommit.

fuggitdude22

It's bizarre watching the internet argue that Iran should have nukes

DrippingPickle

They can enrich the 5% or whatever needed for civilian programmes. Enriching to 60% was just reckless. I'm not saying I endorse the attacks on Iran, but they were playing with fire and they knew it.

polemism

Writing at the *Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists* website, Hoover Institution Research Fellow [Abbas Milani](https://www.hoover.org/profiles/abbas-milani) and Stanford emeritus professor of management science and engineering Siegfried S. Hecker argue that, “following the extensive Israeli bombing of Iran’s nuclear complex, supplemented by American attacks on the better-protected Iranian sites, the time has come for Iran’s leaders to reconsider their past intransigent, deceptive posture and instead pursue a nuclear power program that will benefit the Iranian people.” Milani, a leading authority on Iranian politics, and Hecker, a former director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, review key historical moments that led to the current standoff over Iran’s nuclear program. Turning to the role of US policy, the authors conclude, “It is now important for President Trump to get Israel to stop the bombing and follow through with Iran to consummate a deal that will benefit the people of Iran and take a big step toward peace in the region.”

HooverInstitution

There was a deal. Trump ended it. F off Maga loons.

Hertje73

There’s so much talk about the Iranian nuclear programme being delayed for x period of time. Guys. *Guys*. More time has elapsed since Trump backed out of the deal than it took to design and deploy two different nuclear weapon designs in WWII. If Iran genuinely wanted nukes as much as people claim, they’d have them. They already have the deployment mechanisms. 

It is absurdly clear they didn’t want to actually take that last step and create the bomb a couple months ago. That’s been the IC’s opinion for years, too. I’m old enough to remember the “Iraq has WMDs” talk in 2023; this is the exact same song and dance. The only real difference is the intended scale of involvement on the ground.

PausedForVolatility

Yes yes we are the most righteous people because we are in the Bible also yes we also have nuke because we are the chosen one - israel

If not for USA and aipac, Israel will be gone in no time. Also don't talk about Gaza, because there is no war in Gaza strip.

Every_West_3890

It’s too bad the citizens, the true Iranians, couldn’t use the Israeli strike to enact regime change. Hopefully in our lifetime there will be a free and prosperous Iran.

ChaLenCe

We're getting to the point where the international community has to ask whether the current Iranian regime should be allowed to have nuclear power in general.

Cultural-Flow7185

Religious fanatics and the IRGC are in control there will be no deal until they are gone.

MeatPiston

Trump has been whining and crying about his poll numbers for the last week. His ICE goon squads are becoming increasingly unpopular. His tariffs are a huge TACO failure. His grand military birthday parade was a total flop. Fat Donny is terrified that people see him as "weak", and he's more than willing to spend billions of dollars, kill an untold number of people, and start a war without Congressional approval, if he thinks it will make him look "strong". 

The US is bombing Iran as a sop to one fat old man's ego.

BluesSuedeClues

This doesn't make sense to anyone except MAGA, so you're not alone.

Trump was so desperate to be bold, he listened to the loudest person in the room (Netanyahu) and allowed himself to be carried into the fervor.

History will judge him to be a weak tool for anyone with the right influence.  There aren't very many ways this results in a net positive for the US.

CajunPlunderer

You are placing some sort of strategic or thoughtful value to Trump as a concept. 

Such things haven’t been apparent from him for a long time. 

He trashed the very trade deal he negotiated during his last term and slapped our allies with tariffs. 

It appears that the only thing that matters is how he appears in his mind. In his mind, he appears powerful raining down military action on a country that didn’t strike us first. That’s it. 

There’s nothing else to read into it. 

He’s that much of an empty skull. 

I think a part of his animosity toward our allies is that he feels comparably insecure and less intelligent. To an insecure spray tanned older heavy wrinkled man, Justin Trudeau was probably the last person you’d ever want as a direct counterpart. Justin for all his flaws, was a ladies man. Younger, fit, educated, far better at oration. I cringed when Trump resorted to name calling and such during his first term against Trudeau. Reminded me of high school bullies. This is exactly how the insecure kids would treat others. 

He’s stormed out of several meetings with our allies. I think it eats him to know he really doesn’t belong there. He doesn’t know anything and can’t keep up with what’s being discussed. 

He can’t see how much reputational damage he’s doing to the American image. He just views it as he is being such a tough strong leader. 

It’s truly disheartening.

RobinGood94

It’s to make himself look good. If you go to yahoo news comments. Trump supporters are sucking it up. They don’t understand it didn’t do shit last night, except probably make it worse for Israel and the US.

Heavy_Track_9234

free_world33

It could be, as many suggest, that Trump is merely trying to distract from his own failures at home.

It could be that he wants to declare us on a war footing as a pretext towards invoking martial law.

But given that Trump killed the Obama deal that would have made this whole thing unnecessary...it could simply be that Trump is fucking insane.

Certain-Singer-9625

LarYungmann

Trump wants to go down in history for something. Starting ww3 is better than being remembered for nothing. And here we are.

sgdulac

Goal? Have you been watching? This idiot does what he wants, when he wants!! Goal? LOL

Weird_Bookkeeper_207

Oh you're definitely not the only one baffled by his rationale on most topics. As others may have said, actions like this are for his ego mostly. He's a megalomaniac who thinks it makes him look "strong" and will increase poll numbers and doesn't care who dies or gets hurt in the process. He's made that crystal clear thousands of times over the last decade or so but really he's always been this way so...

LunaZelda0714

like everything -- Iran's situation is complicated. I'm going to try to answer the question without saying its right or wrong nor suggesting Trump did something smart or stupid. Without suggesting books --The Daily podcast by the New York times just released an episode of the Iran situation and Trump's intentions, which were clear he did not want to engage in a direct strike or even wanted to support Israel during their initial pitch of the operations. US is the only country with bunker destroying capabilities in the Western world.

If you look up articles on NYT or WSJ, the premise why he took us out of the Iran deal because he was on the side that Iran having any enrichment capabilities would lead to them having a Nuke because the intentions of Iran pre 2003 was to obtain a weapon. This has been known prior and proven in 2018 by documents obtained by Mossad. Trump's deal revolves around Iran importing enriched uranium instead of making it -- that's the point that Iran didn't want.

Iran did not hold on to their "obama deal for years " after it was repealed--- they had 60% enriched Uranium capabilities as IAEA confirmed. The obama deal asked for their uranium to be kept at below 4%. At 80%+ uranium -- then a nuclear bomb is possible but doesn't mean they wanted to build a bomb. This is where your subjective feelings of Iran comes in.

Israel is obviously on the side that Iran can't be trusted since they have fought poxy wars with Iran for years through Hamas and Hezbollah (axis of resistance). Since those allies have been weaken, Israel thought this was the best time to do it. Leading up to it - Trump has been resisted to it but israel decided to go ahead w/o US support. (NY times the daily, "Will the US join Israel War with Iran")

Israel took out their military leadership and shown that Iran was weak militarily to pursue any real retaliation. giving the US a path to intervene with the most ideal variables if we were to attack Iran. This doesn't account for a regime change war but an isolated situation of time.

I'm assuming the conversation to Trump by the Joint Chiefs, cabinet and intelligence would be questions around: Given this window of time; is it better to dismantle Iran's nuclear capabilities to reset the clock-- giving us a buffer of 2-5 years? Or should we stay out of this and pursue a deal? Can we do both where there is more of a guarantee that nuclear capabilities have been significantly damaged? Israel and Iran in a prolonged conflict - does this accelerate a nuclear bomb? How much of trade gets disrupted if there is prolonged war? Do we have to keep funding weapons to Israel during this time; if how long and how much?

The goals will be based on their answers that Trump came up with in his head. I doubt it has anything to do with his base or his supporters. This muddles the waters for him with his supporters. Tucker Carson -- big MAGA fan base-- is anti intervention.  He was trashing Ted Cruz on Israel and Iran. This muddles his base with him. He knows that.

There is a strategic reason why we would attack Iran- those can be figured out pretty quickly-- those are real concerns regardless of which side you're in. But also, something Trump should have considered from Joint Chiefs and Intelligence is how does this impact the potential conflicts with Russia and China. They would both welcome this and probably try to find ways for Iran to escalate this conflict to allow Russia to pursue Ukraine harder and China to potentially be more aggressive in the pacific.  The US dealing with multiple fronts is bad for Taiwan and Ukraine with China and Russia not worrying too much about US checking their power.  The worse case scenario is not a big conflict with Iran -- its the first step to WWIII. But again -- every worst case is the domino effect of a conflict and the larger countries in the background. depends on your feelings on it.

Midtownpatagonia

Probably to try and help his poll numbers or make money off of this somehow

Jollem-

 Mossad has the Epstein files on Trump. Told him to bomb Iran or they release the files.

No_Vacation369

This is how I see it and I could be wrong. Trump desperately wants the Nobel Peace Prize and has since President Obama got one. Jealousy.  He tried to strike peace deals with Ukraine and Russia, and with Israel and Hamas and failed. He thinks by stupidly attacking Iran, he then can go in during the aftermath and strike a peace deal and thus get his prize. He doesn't realize people see right through him.

Ok_Resource_8530

I think the goal is to distract from all the shit he’s doing domestically, like the [swearing in of tech bros as Lt Colonels in the Army](https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-us-army-swore-192100748.html?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAARbJDIsf8sdA6oVCaT0jhjR-BuY9Z41Zr5NAxYqlBrUyDMVLYSVar7eDUmQJcG4YJEelVFlQtlL6t-Pu8yBpsO4euIrWLkC7wtUI8VcCXn54d52VnZJhc5SflHNEGO_ZeZyUOjwbis-t7KwGZeqcEGz13CQysHBSRZw2e1kUGnh), the lack of basics like [clean water at ICE detention facilities](https://apnews.com/article/migrants-child-supervision-texas-e4994b2b6786717ea79a4be230e476bf), the sale of public lands, and all the other absolute garbage he is doing. 

Trump is a bully who has declared a personal war against EVERYONE. He is at war with America, at war with Iran, and a massive threat to the entire world. 

He must be impeached and removed from office immediately.

parakeetpoop

I'm sure he feels that he's fulfilling his role as the second coming of Christ coming to the aid of jews, or something equally demented and deluded.

FrozeItOff

in my opinion, Netanyahu finally found a US leader dumb enough to believe the story he has been pushing since 1992

sickofgrouptxt

Bibi told him he should do it, and framed it in such a way that if he didn’t do it he would be less of a strong man…that’s the reason we did it.  

It’s also a  good distraction  from his failed policies at home, abysmal approval ratings, and also makes it easier to keep checking things off the project 2025 list that his handlers still want done.

I agree with the other posters that it was also in part a response to his embarrassing birthday parade.

So I guess all of the above?

HoomerSimps0n

Distraction from the fat bitch destroying his own country 

Dull-Gur314

The goal is to distract from all Trumps failures here. There is no credible intelligence ( including US) that says Iran is even close to a Nuclear weapon. They could have all the enriched Uranium; but that still doesn’t mean that they are any closer to weaponizing it. This is eerily reminiscent to  the weapons of mass destruction lie that  led to the invasion of Iraq.

Impressive_Wish796

I'm reasonably certain that everything Trump is doing, he's doing with one end goal in mind: to stop elections and become president for life.

He's going to lead this country to destruction and pretend like he alone can fix things if only he had a lifetime to do it.

Imaginary-Ad8238

PearlyPearlz

generickayak

He now has the headlines hé craved. He does not care whether good or bad. With his malignant narcissistic personality  this is all he cares about.

He has never had any consequences for his actions so he believes he can do whatever he wants.
He will continue to feed his ego as much as possible.

Reasonable-Hippo-293

Distracting and frightening the American public. He has lost at every attempt to control us. He wants us and the world at large so wrapped up in his "war" that he is automatically the center of everyone's attention and "wins" by default. He is a two year old throwing a temper tantrum.

TheRealBlueJade

We literally had to bribe them to not do nukes. That’s not how we like to do things in the US. You say you want an ally wiped off the map, fund our enemies and give them weapons, and take our money? Yea take this L. That’s how I see it.

Skeet_Davidson101

They had intelligence to confirm they didn’t listen to any deals for decades. They were close to obtaining a nuclear weapon that could have wiped Israel out or any country around them. Terrorist state. Iran obtained nuclear weapons they could provide those to all the terrorists organizations in the world that Iran has always supported with weapons.

Infamous_Heat5304

2020Casper

cost them money to get back where they were prob.  The guy is a grade A ass and my fear is in two years we are going to send thousands of 18yr olds to some sand box to play army.

Beneficial-Nimitz68

We have horrible leadership that is losing control domestically. So they have to start a war to stay in power. Common move historically.

DrJ0911

Trump seeing himself as a “winner”.  Full stop.

BraveNewWorld1973

Alive_Agent

To take away the attention of all the other goofy stuff that he's doing 👹🤡🤬

No-Car6897

There are a number of reasons, however, the biggest one is that Russia has been financially suffering because of sanctions against their gas and oil industry. If you disrupt Iran, you reopen the market in Turkey to Russia.

age_of_No_fuxleft

To distract us (or, maybe moreso, MAGA) from his very bad week of low-attendance parade, low-energy Trump at His parade, disagreements with his National Security advisor, Tucker Carlson, and the massive No Kings protests…

MycologistFew9592

I recommend you read Lev Parnas’ Substack dated today. It’s called Trump Strikes Iran- Just like I told you. 
Remember, he was an insider during the last administration and he had sources.

ilmd

Distraction from his disastrous first couple of months. So much controversy, malfeasance, incompetence and losses in the courts. Wagging the dog.

ArtVandelay1979

ipub

Given Donald Trump's erratic behavior, elevated stress levels, and age-related health risks, I believe there is a significant possibility he may not complete a full term in office. In my view, the likelihood of a major health event—such as a stroke—is notably high. While this is a strong prediction, it is grounded in observable patterns and known medical risk factors.

HandsomeGenXer

War = money 

Trump is a business man 
(Where every business he’s own has gone bankrupt)

Evertrist


If Iran was secretly enriching Uranium, and was trying to make a nuclear device; no matter the amount of peace talks that can take place obviously wouldn’t make a difference. Ask yourself this; if you were wrong, and a nuke went off in times square and killed millions of people, strategically destroying these hidden facilities for enriching uranium isn’t such a bad thing. I applaud the fact that our government destroyed specific targeted facilities, and isn’t just out carpet bombing civilians and major cities for no good reason at all.

HeuristicEnigma

Abdelsauron

I tend to try to understand what is happening before talking about my opinions. All I say, I strongly disapprove of TACO and his band of fools.

\- I guess this scenario begins with Trump pulling out of the Iran nuclear treaty in 2018. Up until then Iran had been in compliance with the IAEA inspectors. Iran was allowed to enrich fuel grade uranium but not bomb grade.

\- After the treaty was ended, Iran had started limiting IAEA inspections and increasing enrichment and the situation continued to deteriorate with inspections since they had no incentive to comply.

\- 2025, new negotiations take place for a new treaty but in typical Trump fashion and in concert with Israel's position, , he escalates to  a "no enrichment" demand and that becomes the sticking point for the Iranians. They insist they only want to continue fuel grade enrichment.

\-  director of national intelligence, Tusli Gabbard,  (soon to be ex) director of national intelligence says that Iran is not developing bomb grade uranium. But Israel intelligence says they are moving ahead with bomb grade. Trump sides with Israel's assessment and the bombs start falling.

\- Once Iran returns to the negotiating table, Trump will have a new crazy new demand.

To support or disapprove of the bombing would depend of whether you believe Iran was developing bomb grade materials.  I think Iran was unable or failed to "read the room" and recognize how much danger they were in. In retrospect, they would have been better off opening the doors very publicly and allowing inspections of their program.  I think they were undone by their own protective nature.

SecretOrganization60

Recent developments surrounding the Iranian nuclear program have prompted urgent discussions between the US, UK, France, and Germany. They have set an end-of-August deadline for Iran to demonstrate tangible progress in containing its nuclear activities.

Iran Nuclear Deal and Sanctions

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want