Public sentiment predominantly supports Iran's right to develop nuclear capabilities, citing historical injustices and double standards in nuclear policy from Western countries, particularly the US and Israel. While many express solidarity with Iran against perceived aggression, there is also significant skepticism towards the Iranian regime and the idea of peaceful nuclear intentions. The conversation highlights a strong critique of US foreign policies, a few tones advocating for military intervention, but the overwhelming desire is for peace and acknowledgment of Iran's sovereignty.

Iran

United States

Israel

Post is flaired DISCUSSION. You are free to discuss &amp; debate the topic provided by OP

Please report bad faith commenters 

It’s 0612 .. I am on Reddit while eating a Lox Bagel + coffee, at the office on the 53rd floor overlooking my city in its many shades of morning glory grey. That’s how I roll, have a good day.

VAWNavyVet

If the regime falls it could completely revamp the region. The people have tried to revolt before, most notably during the Arab Spring. It's likely a more moderate group would take control and undo Islamic Fundamentalism. Iran also sponsors and equips Hezbollah, Houthis and Hamas. Those groups might completely collapse without Iranian support. You could see peace not unlike what you have in Europe.  There's a risk though that this creates a power vacuum where some new terrorist group emerges. When Iraq and Saddam Hussein fell, it led to the birth of Isis.

Successful-Ground-67

It’s been part of Netanyahu’s “Clean Break” plan for decades to have regime change in Iran. Trump got the order and he obeys. 

It has nothing to do with the interests of the American people.

CambionClan

They can be replaced with a a regime that will buy weapons from USA instead of Russia.


It will also make our Saudi Royal buddies happy.

ProjectGameGlow

Continued instability in the ME allowing for continued exploitation for resources

WillDill94

Iran is a well known sponsor of terror groups across the world. Crippling this ability would help everyone. Also oil.

True-Grapefruit4042

There are a couple reasons.

1. If Trump can destroy a major US enemy without losing American troops, it'll be a major political victory he needs right now.

2. If Iran fell to instability, it'll basically stop all Nuclear Production programs for a while.

3. If the Iranian state can reinstall the Shah and transition Iran to democracy, then it'll give America another trading partner and could be a domino for other Arab Nations to adopt democratization.

vampiregamingYT

Technically, Israel has not bombed much of Iran’s bomb making facilities. The important ones are underground, one under a mountain and Israel does not have that capability. 

Also technically, Israel has not killed many of the bomb making physicists, only some big department heads. There are hundreds of Iranian physicists working on the bomb, most of whom Israel cannot identify.

Odd_Bodkin

Iran, for obvious reasons, hides parts of its nuclear program. The Israeli destruction of one site does mean that Iran is no longer capable of pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Iran sponsors a number of terrorist organizations to help push its agenda, one of which is the destruction of Israel. Another goal is to force the  Iran is hostile even to many of its Arab neighbors. The world would be improved by a regime change in Iran, preferably peacefully. Dictators tend not to give up power and fight it all the way to the point that their own personal safety is clearly at risk.

Iran is not only targeting Israel with violent. It targets U.S. interests too. Iran dearly wants to push the U.S. out of that region of the world. The benefit to forcing an end to the current regime may be more stability in the Middle East and less threat to Americans and American interests in the region.

Taxed2much

Instability in the East means expanded presence and the US loves to steal other nation resources. We've done it repeatedly and gotten away with it and it helps us stay in power without actually having to improve. 

Basically conflict is good for capitalism especially when others suffer.

pandershrek

&gt;But if the fear was Iran producing nuclear weapon than technically didnt Israel solve that problem by bombing all of their facility and killing their scientist?

No, they still have facilities and scientists. 

&gt;What benefit is it to the US to continue escalating this conflict? 

End of the hardline theocracy, Iran's destabilizing effect on the region ended. Of course, we'd probably destabilize it even more, like we tend to do. We'd need to find a popular moderate politician to back for the new government, if the theocrats have left any alive. 

&gt;Why is Israel continuing to attack Iran? 

Iran keeps attacking and threatening Israel, plus they fund, arm, and train Hamas and other terror groups to attack Israel.

DBDude

Iran has been funding most all of the terrorism in the middle east, and the world for a wrong time.  They are trying to develop a nuke, and if they do so they WILL use it.  First on Israel, then on the US.  They don't care that we would eliminate them as well, to them killing non believers, especially Jewish and US is an acceptable price to pay.

What do we have to gain?  Removal of the worlds largest funder of terrorism &amp; elimination of an enemy that WILL nuke us if given the opportunity.

RiverCityWoodwork

The people of Iran deserve to be free.  Before the Islamic extremists took over, Iran was a very free society with art, fashion, music.  Iran should be allowed to once again be the great nation that it once was with free flow of science and culture.  To do that, the strangle hold of the mullahs must be broken.

BamaTony64

More mandatory contracts for weapon companies?

2baverage

Net has been saying for 30 years that Iran is weeks away.

she212

I don't see a benefit, I mean a moderate Iran would be a good thing but there's no guarantee that would happen. If Iran falls it'll probably turn into a civil war... 


The US forcing regime change is a practice best left to the past.  

Emergency_Word_7123

Russia will lose an ally that supplies munitions and we lose an adversary in the region. I don’t like us going to war with Iran especially since we are trying to negotiate with them and this conflict in the Middle East wasn’t started by us.

aBlackKing

clezuck

The US doesn't. Israel has their hands full with the West Bank and Gaza occupation. Even if they had the manpower to occupy Iran if they toppled the current government, there is the problem of being separated by Iraq.

So, various far-right militias will battle for and take control of the country. Iran sucks, but whatever replaces it in a vacuum will be worse.

azrolator

Power vacuum, more terrorism, weapons sales.

Zealousideal_Sir_264

Exploreradzman

Iraan has funded pretty much every terrorist organization in the Middle East for decades. Those organizations, in turn, kill our troops, attack out merchant ships, and attack our allies. Without the financial backing of Iran most, if not all, of those terrorist groups will die on the vine and the Middle East will become a much safer place for the US and the rest of the world. Those groups will also be too worried about surviving and much less likely trying to figure out a way of sneaking into our country (probably through our southern border if Trump were not President) in order to attack us.

StoicNaps

Oil. 

2 (maybe 3) tankers are on fire in the strait of Hormuz. Reports say they "collided". If it wasn't accidental then it's possible Iran is sending a message. If they were actually allowed to close the straight then we'd be looking at huge gas price increases.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/uk-maritime-firm-says-it-is-aware-incident-east-uaes-khor-fakkan-2025-06-17/

Do all of the sudden the US is interested in material support, not just rhetorical support for Israel. But really, it's about the oil.

OccamsRabbit

Iran vowed to eliminate the USA and Israel.  They find all of the various Islamic terror factions around the world. They can never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

Maturemanforu

Imo, it is just another proxy war, and I am _not_ here for it.  

The most realistic fear is that of nuclear proliferation. That entire region, with the exception of Israel, is intensely anti-west. Iran has been running proxies, notably ISIS, the Taliban (and by extension al-Qaeda), Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., and it has also been enriching Uranium beyond the capacity for any known peaceful use. By all optics, it looks like they are making nuclear arms, and allowing the nation to sponsor a lot of turbulent groups in the region seems like a recipe for disaster.  

Now, that said, they lack the technology to convert these nuclear payloads into any sort of hypersonic weapons that would threaten the US. Instead, it poses a significant risk to Israel, which is one of our few allies in the region.  

This raises a sort of moral question of whether we should treat the people who want to exterminate the Jewish people from the world as a credible threat to the Jewish people once given the means to exterminate them, _**or**_ if we should wait for them to act first, trusting in their human decency and to act against their religious doctrine by not performing a genocide. Given their actions in the past 30 years, the conversation is heavily weighted toward the former than the latter.  

Also to consider is that Iran is part of BRICS, and with the Great Firewall of China, it is also reasonable to assume that this setback is minor.

Politi-Corveau

Titus_Roman_Emperor

Another country to exploit its resources and another market for our products. Geographically speaking, Iran is exceptionally valuable to America and ultimately Russia, the big boss.

AZ-FWB

Your question is based on a false assumption. The calculus isn't, "What does America get?" It's "What does Trump get?" and "What does the last person Trump talked to want?"


Creating a power vacuum in Iran will enlarge the Saudi and Russian spheres of influence, and seriously degrade the capability of Hezbollah and Hamas to hurt Israel.


And Trump thinks, if he does that, then Vladimir and Crown Prince Muhammed and Bibi will *finally* be his close personal friends. And he can take them golfing at his resorts, and they can pick up cocktail waitresses together and talk shit about their wives and ex-wives. And he'll play polo with MBS in the desert. And Vlad will take him shirtless bear hunting in Siberia. And they'll all eat lunch with him at the U.N. And *finally* he'll feel his dad's love.

stratusmonkey

The only benefit I see is less weapons for Russian war. Other than that 0.

sgm716

Considering that the Islamic Republic of Iran calls Israel the Little Satan and the USA the Great Satan, that they are trying to develop ICBMs to hit us with (if they ever get a nuke), then there is a lot that we could benefit from in a regime change. I think that the US has proven that it’s really bad at doing it though, so we should let the Iranian people do it, if that’s what they really want. 

The regime has been severely weakened by Israel right now, so if they want freedom then they should reach out and grab it. To quote Ben Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Handing people liberty is not good enough. They should put their lives on the line if they really want it. That’s just my personal thoughts though.

Far-Jury-2060

PriorityFirst8777

It's completely unknown. First, it's unclear the existing regime will collapse. There is no credible opposition waiting in the wings to swoop in. If there is some kind of regime change it would undoubtedly be very messy (and bloody) as different no-name groups fight each other, and the rump regime. There is no way to predict who comes out on top.

Look at Libya. When Khadafi fell the country devolved into a civil war that still hasn't ended. This left an opening for Russia to curry favor with some factions to get a toehold in the region. The blowback from a chaotic civil war in Iran is impossible to predict. What if millions of Iranians flee the country, with the flood of refugees destabilizing other nations?

Be careful what you wish for.

secondsniglet

Israel only slowed the progress of enriching uranium. The US is the only one with the bomber and bomb to stop the progress.

EngineerPenguinz

When I was in college the largest group of foreign students was from Iran. Iranian students were very pro west. And today Iranians are very friendly towards the U.S.  This is in the urban areas. I imagine the fundamentalists would create an insurgency that would put country at risk.

Logical-Grape-3441

Well, we would certainly benefit if Iran no longer has the capacity to fund and equip terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.

pawnman99

No, their nuclear program is not destroyed. The Iranians did not put all their eggs in one basket, as they expected the possibility of someone trying to destroy their nuclear program. The remaining enrichment site that is left largely untouched is buried pretty much under a mountain at about 300 ft below surface. Israel has neither a bomb big enough nor a plane that can carry a bomb big enough to penetrate far enough to destroy that facility. They can probably do it using special forces landing in the area and fighting their way in; it is a tougher way to do it than just dropping a bomb from 60,000 feet, and with a lower chance of success. They are not asking for the US to put troops on the ground, just put a few really big bombs into the last remaining nuclear facility. To those that claim there would be retaliation because of it, Iran already said there would be retaliation for anyone helping to defend Israel, which the US is already doing. Besides, Iran considers us the Great Satan, while they call Israel the little Satan, so it is very much in our interest that Iran has neither nuclear weapons nor ballistic missiles to deliver them.

lp1911

wait. didn't obama providing money to iran (their own assets, unfrozen?) in 2015 was part of an agreement to not do an enrichment program? how were they able to start enrichment program since then.

honest question. serious answers only ty

rook2pawn

It really doesn’t matter what the US benefits, it’s what Trump benefits, that’s where you should start

SnooHedgehogs1029

Pretty sure they’re also one of possibly 3 or 4 countries still without Rockefeller bank.

dvo94

A couple ways. 

First - Trade . The gulf states (Persian/arabian gulf) is a highly productive area when it comes to trade. Not having to have an increased security presence to protect trade is a big win for the US and could lower the price of oil and goods. 

Second - Security. Iran sponsors a lot of terrorist/insurgents/freedom fights in MENA. Those groups lose their primary backer, then they fall apart. Which means less US forces and less American support in the region. Also, means the gulf states can work together toward other endeavors and potentially peace. Iran is in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia and Turkey and it appears to be getting into a hot war with Israel. That goes away and the US could move into other things. 

Third - Iran and the US could be great allies. Iran used to be considered a little America (some things still exist like nose jobs and other plastic surgeries). You remove the clerical leadership, then a possible outcome is a more westernized regional government. Which could be used as leverage against the increasingly authoritarian regime in Turkey and the authoritarian religious regime in Saudi Arabia. 

As far as Israel. Iran is the primary backer of Hezbollah and Hamas. Two terrorist organizations that target Israeli citizens. In addition Iran’s goals are power and the elimination of the state of Israel. Israel wants to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, because Iran could give that bomb to its proxies to use against them or could use it themselves against them. 

The US backs Israel for many different reasons. 

1st) Supporting Israel is popular for the American public. You either need to be in a really safe district to support anti Israel sentiment. Or else you will lose the election. The Jewish or Jewish supportive voting block is quite large in the US. For example if you have 20,000 people who vote reliably in the midterms in a district. Being anti Israel can cause an additional 5k or more that normally don’t vote to come out and vote against you in the primary. The district might be safe red or blue, but you’ll get primaried and can’t overcome the motivated voting block. Which is typical of smaller elections in the US. You motivate opposition in a smaller election you lose. Irish, Polish, Armenian, etc voting blocks can swing smaller elections. 

2) Experimental Military Technology. Nothing beats real application of new military technology . The most successful experimental technology was the iron dome. You get to try things out with a country that isn’t going to steal and reverse engineer your tech . Then improve it using real life data. One of the reasons why powers in the past have fallen was due to lack of development of new military technology. In that region the Ottoman Empire is a good example of this. 

3rd - Look at the neighborhood. Lebanon and Syria are basically failed states with Terrorist organizations operating within them. Egypt controls the best piece of geography in the area, the Suez Canal. Egypt is known for its political issues. Jordan is basically propped up by the existence of Israel. Turkey gets more authoritarian each passing day. Yemen is a failed state ran by terrorists. Saudi Arabia is a long lasting ally that acts in a realpolitik way and that always isn’t in the US best interests. Not to mention their authoritarian nature and alleged support for certain terrorist groups. It’s a tough neighborhood. 

4) Using Israel prevents troops on the ground. Similar to other proxies. You supply and they kill or die and you don’t have to put your own boots on the ground. It’s more of a Cold War strategy that has stuck around. 

5) Intelligence sharing. Mossad and other groups are regional and potentially global. You can gain access to information through their network. It could be information on Venezuela, MENA, Pakistan, Russia, China, etc. Highly sophisticated intelligence is invaluable. 

There are reports of some underground structures that could develop enriched uranium capable of producing bombs. No way to verify either way without non affiliated inspectors verifying on the ground. Those inspectors could be paid off or be in an intelligence agency secretly. Which makes matters complicated , because both sides would deny any positive or negative information. And the vetting process would be incredibly difficult.

one8sevenn

lets make it real easy. 

1.  Iran stops fighting Israel

2. Israel can now focus on the genocide in Gaza again

3.  Gaza gets wiped out, and Trump gets to build his "desert oasis" resort.

Successful-Coyote99

it's not in our best interest. it's what Israiel/Netanyahu wants &amp; they own our government &amp; politicians.

shugEOuterspace

Trump can’t sick the military on Americans if they’re too busy fighting a foreign war.

ChunkyBubblz

The US is the world's #1 exporter of Liquefied Natural Gas, and Iran and Russia are huge competitors for that market. Iran's downfall would help eliminate a competitor, especially if the US installs a puppet regime in Iran (again).

Iran is not trying to get nuclear weapons. They're part of the NPT, and the IAEA would know if they were trying to make weapons, because the inspectors are there. 

The US is only mad about Iran because the Iranian theocratic regime isn't under our control. We don't care about human rights or freedom; if we did, we wouldn't have installed the Shah and then spent decades murdering all moderate, secular opposition to him.

carry_the_way

Iran is working on creating nuclear weapons and Iran actively funds terrorist organizations and equips them. 

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, Israel would be nuked within a fortnight.

SaltyBabySeal

For the last twenty years, Iran has said it is only interested in nuclear reactors for energy needs. Yesterday it suggested it would nuke most of the world. So, the thing we have to gain from this is not having pee that glows in the dark.

tigers692

Judging by past republican administrations, the alleged benefit is oil?

C4dfael

Israel/US would prefer colonizing all of the region.

4p4l3p3

There is no benefit to the U.S.  Conflict in the Middle East destabilizes oil prices and keeps us at odds with various factions that have a tendency to fly planes into buildings.

AutomaticMonk

Besides US support for Israel, there is a long history that is the predicate for the hostile posture between the US and Iran. Even if you take Israel completely out of the picture, the hostility would still be there as fervent as ever because the current state of things is largely the result of the past 75 years with relations between the two becoming heated in the late 70's during the Iranian revolution which saw the current leadership regime come into power.  There is way more than I can reasonably cover in this post, and the best thing you can do is read up on the history.  The bottom line though is that US support for Israel is just a drop in the bucket.

&gt;But if the fear was Iran producing nuclear weapon than technically didnt Israel solve that problem by bombing all of their facility and killing their scientist?

&gt;What benefit is it to the US to continue escalating this conflict? Why is Israel continuing to attack Iran? And why would the US spend resources to assist in the destruction of Iran when theyre clearly the weaker opposition? Isn't their nuclear producing capability already destroyed?

Israel has had rather impressive success, however Iran's Fordo nuclear facility which is buried deep under a mountain is largely untouched.  While I suspect Israel has some plan to diminish or destroy it without U.S. involvement, The most obvious and expedient way to neutralize it is a weapon system that only the U.S. (at least publicly) is known to have and be able to deliver, the famous MOAB.  Yes Iran's military capabilities have been significantly and substantially diminished, but it has not been reduced to zero even in the nuclear weapons realm.

Regime change would likely benefit the US.  I say likely because who knows what would be next, but it's hard to imagine something worse for US interests than the Khamenei leadership.

Consider things in Ukraine, and the biggest reason the US has not been directly involved.  If Russia didn't have nuclear weapons it would be a much different story.   The US has every reason to have the policy of "Iran can't have nukes".   The general goal right now however is to keep from widening the conflict.  If the US can sit back and lend unequivocable support for Israel in these actions and let Israel wipe clean Iranian Nuclear progress that accomplishes the major primary goal without potentially sparking a third world war.   Russia and China don't seem interested in getting involved either.

thecoat9

First off it removes the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.  2nd Russia and China lose their own country that supported them in the middle east regardless of what they do.  3rd a lasting peace for the middle east is more than likely.  Iran was the only nation in opposition to the last 2 peace accords with Israel.

ironeagle2006

There is no reason other than oil that we should be involved in the middle east. This business about a nuclear Iran is nothing more than a fear game for the gullible masses.  Remember all the bloviation that if North Korea got nukes it would be WW3? Nukes are useless paper weights, no one ever uses them other than to bluff.   They cannot be used because  the minute they are the offending nation is open to a nuclear strike.  I am pretty sure Iranians don't want that.

CoolSwim1776

Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.

dewlitz

The Iran government directly supports various terrorist groups that have been condemned by the UN. 

Having that regime fall would benefit most of the world.

Backyard_Brouhaha

Unlikely_Minute7627

Iran has been funding terrorist against us for decades, and has launched thousands of miles at Israel. So many that they have the most advanced missile dense system on earth to intercept them. While their current government is in change, nothing is going to change. Them having nukes would mean nuclear war, but them existing in their current state still means war

atamicbomb

bringbackIpaths

Israel wants to assure that Iran can't easily re-constitute their program; further, not all sites have been impacted. Notably, Fordow is a hard target, as it is buried in a mountain.

Both the US and (notably) Israel have an interest in Iran not having a nuclear weapon. There is also a fear of a "domino effect" of other middle east states starting covert programs if Iran has a weapon.

DavidMeridian

The idea is pushing out regional hegemony to the middle east and fully encircling Russia and China.


The ultimate goal of the US is global Hegemony. Meaning they have to take down anyone that's standing up to them in any way or has potential to. That means North Korea, China, Russia, and of course Iran.


Pakistan has been fully compliant with the US as hegemon, in some ways even more than India, so it's not a threat.


If you understand that the US desires global Hegemony then it all makes sense.


There are of course some economic benefits like an oil pipeline through the middle east owned by the west, but these benefits can easily be achieved diplomatically. For example China just built a train going into Iran. So it really just comes down to US Hegemony.


What the US doesn't seem to understand is that it's empire is already stretched thin and it lost in Ukraine. If the US wants to have a prayer of taking down China, it has to focus it's reduced and ramp up production of munitions and weapons and become more independent and more industrious.


The way the US thinks (and of course Israel has a huge undue influence on the US that is against us national interest) is as follows: 


"If we destroy Iran then we have one less country to support China when we go to make them down." 


From a cynical perspective, this may be true if the US was better positioned than it is. The reality is that Israel is dragging the US into this war prematurely even by us imperial standards because Israel doesn't want to lose steam from the Gaza genocide.


Of course, morally, ethically, economically, it's the absolute worst choice the US can be making short of declaring an all out war on a nuclear great power like China or Russia.

burrito_napkin

uhhh bc they are trying to make nukes and will continue to try and regularly chant death to america

MAGHANDS314

Iran is the primarily belligerent in every current  conflict in the Middle East.

They are funding proxy wars against Israel and Saudi Arabia.

It funded Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and Syrian fighters.

The entire reason Iran does this is to bleed its enemies of Israel and Saudi Arabia, and then to create friction between the alliances of Israel &amp; other Middle East states &amp; the west.

Iran is also a backer and enabler of Pakistan, who in turn threaten India.

No Ayatollah regime in Iran means no belligerent threatening regional stability a ton of U.S. allies, global trade, and global energy.


Iran has been fucking around for too long and has just entered the find out stage.

Kman17

&gt;Isn't their nuclear producing capability already destroyed?

No. Israel doesn't even have the capability to bomb the main underground one if they wanted to (and they clearly look like they want to). That's why everyone is looking at the US to see if we will or will not attempt to destroy it. 

I'm not sure if the USA is even certain that our bunker buster bomb can destroy it in the first place, since it's all theoretical without knowing for sure what type of reinforcement Iran has down there. It'd look awfully bad if we try, only to find out that it fails.

TianZiGaming

Literally everything the US does in the Middle East is about two things. Controlling the land, and controlling the oil under it.

Lord_Shadowfire

It’s about oil. It’s always been about oil with Iran.

The people of Iran *chose* Islamic revolution because of a western installed autocrat. 

Do we really want do that to them again? Do we really want to do that to us again?

1singhnee

So now that Iran’s nuclear facilities are gone, Hamas is obliterated, Hezbollah is dismantled, and Syria is under a new regime…Bibi can rest and go to prison now

eo37

If you put boots on the ground, it has a 40% chance of being so. 

  
If we just do airstrikes, no one is going to care within a year, outside of Foreign Affairs writers.

spinosaurs70

"Yet even Hezbollah continues to function in Lebanon, and Iran is far more powerful."  
That's disingenuous. Obviously you're not going to completely erase any actor through force of arms - to insinuate otherwise is sneaky. What's worth noting about Hezbollah is that the Lebanese army is operating against Hezbollah for the first time in decades. Lebanon is asserting its national sovereignty, and the government is warning Hezbollah against getting further involved against Israel. That's pretty historic. 

  
Also - while I'm here - 'catastrophe' strikes me as a bit facile as well. I remember the Iraq war - this isn't that. If the US flies its bomber's home without boots on the ground (and - why would they? Let Khamenei witness the shambles of his revolution in quiet defeat), then all this will all be a distant memory by end of summer.

AJGrayTay

Wonder what happens to Ukraine now with this war. Russia must like the increasing oil prices and Putin publicly saying he wants ALL of ukraine

iLov3musk

The first question: how successful was the bombing mission?  Has Fordow really been obliterated?  If so, that's great news.

But we have to wait for assessments.  Everyone here is talking about the day after.  Much will depend on what actually happened today.

Oldschool728603

Doing nothing is also a gamble. Counting on diplomacy and hoping treaties will be upheld is also a gamble. Gambles are measured on their risks and rewards.  

Now Iran is in an intolerable position with little to no leverage, the IAF is unopposed in their skies, their best equipment and leadership are dwindling or eliminated, and the nuclear program was pushed years back - this is as close to perfect conditions for U.S. negotiators as possible, the regime’s need to save face is the only hurdle left.

**So what supposedly makes this gamble worse?**

&gt; Even in the event that the United States and Israel “succeed” in their goals of destroying Fordow or even ousting the Islamic Republic, these would likely be ephemeral accomplishments or Pyrrhic victories. Destroyed equipment can be rebuilt. A tyrannical government can be replaced by an even more rapacious one

W.T.F. ... What would those people even consider a success?

&gt; it is a particularly bad bet when compared with the alternative: an agreement that imposes robust verification on Iran’s nuclear activities and puts enough time on the clock to detect and preempt a breakout. 

That was the primary course of action for literal decades. It just didn't work. Maintaing the ability for a breakout was practically an Iranian pre-condition - even when an agreement was signed Iran just kept enriching to weapons grade under it.  
The current war broke out immediately after it came out negotiations went nowhere.
**To call something an alternative it actually needs to be a viable option**.

&gt; Under these conditions, exhausting every possibility to achieve such an agreement is the only responsible course. 

Setting the program back a few years and keeping Iran under intolerable pressure **is such a possibility** to get whatever agreement is desirable - ideally one that excludes any nuclear program.  
War is diplomacy by other means and all that.

This article joins the long notorious tradition of arguments taking nuanced considerations and abusing them to the point of denying basic common sense.  
Someone should really make a bingo card for those:  
- There are limitations to power? - nothing strategic can ever be achieved militarily.  
- Power vacuums exist as a concept? - actually defeating enemies is always bad.  
- Mission creep exists as a concept? - bombing one specific site is practically a full scale ground invasion (and probably a return to the draft).
- Violence can radicalize people? - Any use of lethal force strengthens the enemy! There are absolutely no limits or enabling circumstances to that effect!

OwlMan_001

No idea what would constitute an awesome, unproblematic "gamble".

My concern is that Trump is appearing to succeed on multiple levels.

Revolvlover

Thankfully the US has a level-headed reasonable Commander in Chief, whose military advisors have loads of experience and a history of de-escalation.

This will all prob blow over in… about 2 or 3 weeks, maybe sooner. 

The_Life_Aquatic

There a real chance of mission creep, overextentding our forces more thin, causing ever greater poltical polarization at home, more blooming debt, a new wave of terror by pro-Iranian, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shia milltias connected sleeper cells planted by the irgc/quds forces over the past couple decades in the Iranian campaign of dawa and taaqiya deception to convert non-muslims and non-shia to the khomenist brand of twelver shia islam), massive blowback from yet another American intervention in West Asia, and causing a new recruitment for moslem fundamentalists like Hezbollah, ISIS, Al qaeda, hizbulthair, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. to attack the west , and a wave of anti-americanism across the world where Americans are boycotted, mob muggings and beating ,,even lynchings of American tourists, because people around the globe are sick and tired of us interventionism.

Meanwhile china, india and other powers are just sitting  back, using things like soft power,  negioating from a position of strength,  de-coupling from the dollar, having win-win situations in deals, debt diplomacy, and real economic partnerships to exert their influences in the world.

Plus if this includes more and more airstrikes , proxy wars, a nightmarish boots on the ground situation, iran giving the nod to sleeper cell  terrorism on the homefront ,  a new wave of anti-american "yankee doodle go home imperalist" type of mass protests, higher intreasts rates, higher gas prices, there a good chance it becomes highly unpopular to the American people who are already burned out  from post-cold war interventionism, foreign aid, mission creep, nation building,  democracy building , "invade the world , invite the world", etc. Policies that has burned out the vast majority of Americans from our adventures in Ukraine, Libya, Somolia, Afghanistan,  iraq, Syria, Kosvo, Bosnia &amp; Herzegovina, Yemen, the shael , and so forth, and no American will vote for a neoliberal Democrat party or a neocon GOP for generations, and may cause unrest here if poltical polarization grows if this goes beyond these rather sucessful us strikes.

Psychological-Flow55

I'd appreciate feedback on the following.

The US cannot prevent Iran from closing the Strait to tankers; Iran has been preparing for this for decades, the geography facilitates hidden placement of anti-ship munitions, and tankers are too vulnerable.

Closing the Strait to everyone except themselves would be attractive to Iran. China would continue to purchase Iranian fossil fuels via overland pipelines and China-flagged tankers would be invulnerable to interdiction by the US Navy. However, Israel would likely disable Iranian pipelines and export terminals with minimal-enough damage to allow Iran to recommence exports if they reopen the Strait. For this reason, Iran may cease their own exports rather than suffer damage to their infrastructure.

If Iran closes the Strait, all exports from Iran and and all exports by others through the Strait would be indefinitely prevented. Saudi Arabia would continue sending some fossil exports through the Red Sea and China would likely not oppose the US more-thoroughly quashing the Houthis' abilities to interdict this trade in order to receive some exports themselves (anyone know how long it would take Saudi Arabia to increase this pipeline capacity?). Iran would zero out their export revenue and their population would blame the regime for the resultant economic effects. With Israel continuing to attrit Revolutionary Guard command &amp; equipment/personnel concentrations, weakening Iran's internal security apparatus, that could lead to the regime being overthrown over a period of years.

Would anyone opine how Iran closing the Strait (indefinitely constraining Chinese fossil imports) would affect Chinese calculations vis-a-vis Taiwan?

There are many variables, but I can imagine the US concluding that Iran closing the Strait, justifying the above, is a most-favorable outcome.

flossypants

Netenyahu said jump and Trump said, "How high?" Weakest president ever.

BlatantFalsehood

OP gives only 1/2 of a valuable opinion.  The other half would be to let us know how Iran having as many nukes as they want would be preferable

rockeye13

This was clearly American aggression on a foreign adversary. They’re weak and we kicked them. I don’t see the problem, they would gladly do the same if in the position of power. Why should the US treat them any other way?

UAINTTYRONE

Sorry but I heard the same story after Operation Praying Mantis back in 1988. 
And what happened?

SGReichswehr

Yes… Allow a Iranian nuclear program and ballistic missile programs to progress… Brilliant idea

Friendly-Cellist-553

The propaganda machine is strong in this thread 

openupimwiththedawg

Resident-Watch4252

Iran has been negotiated in bar faith for years. Russia has been negotiating in bad faith since the inauguration in Jan 2015. U.S. just showed that it's very dangerous, too negotiate in bad faith. Hopefully Russia was watching.

airman8472

I loved reading FA and subscribed for years.  I didn’t see much correlations with what was written and what actually happened after though

MindBeginning5217

Obviously not… They’re an irresponsible terrorist state… They armed Hamas Iraqi militias the Houties and Hezbollah … look at the recent investigation into Hezbola operations in Great Britain. Look at the way women are beaten tortured  and killed over dress code violations… these people are crazy

Regime change from followed by Iran joining NATO would be hilarious.

Phssthp0kThePak

I hear Israel has a nuclear program. Would it be consistent to bomb Tel Aviv until they dismantle it?

Graymouzer

\[SS from the essay by Andrew P. Miller, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and was U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli-Palestinian Affairs from December 2022 to June 2024.\]

President Donald Trump announced on June 19 that he will decide in the next two weeks whether the United States will join Israel’s military campaign in Iran. If he decides in the affirmative, the United States will be entering a war in the Middle East with ambiguous objectives (including but not necessarily limited to countering nuclear proliferation), an incomplete strategy, and a high risk of entrapment.

This prospect has, understandably and rightly, evoked painful memories of the Iraq war for many Americans. As a president who claimed to oppose the Iraq war, Trump, along with his allies, has tried to frame possible U.S. military intervention in Iran in limited terms, with a focus on the single target of the underground Fordow nuclear enrichment facility, which Israel may not be capable of destroying on its own. This may be an accurate reflection of Trump’s intentions, but even that decision would carry major risks, including Iranian retaliation against U.S. military facilities in the Gulf or terrorist attacks against Americans abroad, which could prolong and deepen U.S. involvement in Iran. Even if a limited U.S. operation goes according to plan with no retaliation, a decision to intervene in the conflict would, rather than end Iran’s nuclear program, make a sustainable solution harder to achieve.

ForeignAffairsMag

Nothing like a gamble from the guy who bankrupted a casino

OptimisticRealist__

President Trump said that he was sending US officials to hold talks with Iran on its nuclear programme next week amid conflicting reports over the damage it had sustained during a bombing campaign.

Speaking on the sidelines of the Nato summit, Trump insisted that the programme had been fully destroyed by Israeli and US strikes, despite doubts cast by a leaked Pentagon assessment.

“We’re going to talk to them next week, with Iran,” he said. “We may sign an agreement. I don’t know. To me, I don’t think it’s that necessary.”

In his initial announcement of the US strikes on Iran’s three main nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan at the weekend, Trump said they had been “completely and fully obliterated”.

TimesandSundayTimes

My guess is that the Iranians will probably still insist on enrichment and the US may end the conversations there because they bombed their nuclear sites. Given how stubborn the Iranians have been even in the face of a gun which has already been fired then I don't see any reason why they would now agree to give up their nuclear program and they'll probably continue it underground one way or another. As for Trump he's been looking for a quick conclusion and this may be a good way to declare victory. Of course there is always the possibility that Trump will give up on enrichment and sign a JCPOA 2.0 which will be one of the more hilarious outcomes from this.

Armano-Avalus

I personally am willing to bet Iran, with apparently most of its uranium stockpile intact, will test a nuclear weapon more than 4 months from now, but less than a year.

killa_kuma

AgitatedHoneydew2645

The sites are totally destroyed no matter what Tulsi Gabbard is ordered by Trump to cook up, the Iranians got out a lot of material before the strikes, and it didnt completely "destroy" it, the us and Israel just sit it back a few months or years.

Now the mullahocracy will be racing towards a nuke, and I think in response Sunni Arab Saudi Arabia seeing a Persian  Shiite Iran and Jewish Isrel get or have nukes, while the big players like Russia, UK, France, USA, China, and India have nukes, and countries like North Korea and Pakistan regimes survive because they have nukes must be concluding it needs nukes for regime survival, countering Iran and making sure if tension ever sour with the us or Israel in the ever shifting global landscape, they cant be invaded or overthrown.
Iran getting a nukes sets off a regional arms race, Turkey seeing Israel and Iran get them, and the powers like Russia, China and Russia have them will want them, Saudi Arabia seeing a rival like Iran, and Israel (who relations could turn sour the longer the mideast tensions and shifting alliance occur) have nukes will want them, then we get into countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia who would be both frightened by Iran nukes, and wouldnt want total monopoly of Saudi Arabia influence (ie - be it milltarily, economically, geopoltically) to subjugate them from their pov, and want to act independently (ie - and also alarmed by each other getting nukes and the uae and Qatar rivarly only calmed down, it never really gone away, UAE relenctuly went ahead with the Saudi led lifting of the Qatari blockcade, and only recently started to normalize relations, it wasnt that long ago wearing a pro-Qatari shirt or jersey can land someone in a Abu Dubai or Dubai jail)
Oresident Trump may get too look strong and get his moment as allegedly "destroying the Iranian nuclear sites" and Israel Bibi will get to brag about "destroying Iran nukes" and severely degrading its missle defense and missle launchers, as well as the capabilities, plus the command &amp; control of the IRGC/Quds forces has really just sat back Iranian nuclear program a bit and only made the Mullahocracy double down for regime survival and making sure no one would dare invade Iran, like what What Israeli brazenly just did invading Iran airspace and controlling or when Iraq invaded Iran in a painful 8 year war.

The Iranian regime unlike before the airstrikes and mass casulties happened, now has all factions unified behind the mullahs quest for a nuke, instead of dividing and fracturing Iran , it stirred up a wave of Persian nationalism not seen by the population in a while, all united against the attacks, and united now in a quest for nukes.

Just to correct you, South Africa had nukes and the apartheid government was toppled.

So Iran could still have a governmental change if they had nukes it would just have to come from within. This of course would be very unlikely given how past protests have been handled.

BuffZiggs

If Iran is obviously only using nuclear energy as a ruse to develop nuclear weapons because there's no way an oil rich country would develop nuclear energy:

- Why does the USA have nuclear energy when it's the biggest oil producer in the world and only a little bit behind Iran in term of oil per capita?

- Why did the USA help Iran develop its nuclear energy infrastructure when it was an ally under the Shah?

I think unless you can answer these and once combined with the constant analysis from intelligence agencies that Iran is not producing weapons it, the CMV is a false dichotomy.

Toverhead

Quite the opposite…

A devastated Iran is the ultimate example to every country that nuclear proliferation is the only means of guaranteeing national sovereignty. 

Regime change in Iran is only possible because Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons… the justification for military intervention is that they are trying to attain a nuclear weapon, meanwhile they are currently negotiating with the US diplomatically to establish a nuclear deal that would prevent them from developing those weapons. 

The issues are two-fold:

1. The US will no longer be considered a credible country to be negotiated with.

2. Any other country even remotely concerned that the US (or any other power for that matter…) may invade them will immediately push to develop nuclear weapons as a means of national survival. 

Wanna know why you don’t really hear about how “threatening” North Korea is to global security like how I did growing up?

Because they have nukes now… try something, and they’ll put a nuclear-missile on the West Coast in a half hour…

Doub13D

It will work this time, I am sure it will please let us kill a few thousand people.

randJoe43

Better for who, exactly, will be what this debate hinges upon. Many misconceptions about Iran. Theocracy mostly yes, but also 70% of science and engineering grads are women, Tehran is quite advanced and buzzing, and ethnicities are quite diverse (West just has myopic view of this).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyguttman/2015/12/09/set-to-take-over-tech-70-of-irans-science-and-engineering-students-are-women/

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/largest-ethnic-groups-in-iran.html

Blondi8866

Dawg we are not falling for the WMD nonsense again also “destabilized” you use that word so casually because you do not know how depressing it is.

RateEmpty6689

Pakistan has nukes. It has seen multiple coups and regime changes. Nukes didn't help their governments to become permanent.

USSR had nukes. Didn't keep it from disintegrating.

Pristine_Club_3128

Iran's Supreme Leader has warned the US and Israel amidst tensions over Iran's nuclear activities, claiming readiness for retaliation and emphasizing the urgency for nuclear negotiations.

Iran-US Relations and Nuclear Tensions

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want