Public sentiment is divided yet largely critical of U.S. foreign policy regarding the Iran Nuclear Deal and sanctions. Many commenters support Iran's right to enhance its nuclear capabilities in response to frustration over U.S. sanctions and perceived hypocrisy, feeling that Iran has upheld its commitments while the U.S. has not. There is a strong call for solidarity with the Iranian people and a push for understanding their struggles, alongside a desire for diplomatic resolutions.

Iran

United States

International Community

Users often report submissions from this site for sensationalized articles. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.

You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue.

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

AutoModerator

That’s pretty nice, but unfortunately sanctions really only punish the people, while the rulers continue to hoard and stock up on wealth.

Fruitcake6969

By Gabe Whisnant — Breaking News Editor |

Britain, France and Germany warned they are prepared to reimpose United Nations sanctions on Iran if the country fails to resume negotiations over its nuclear program and restore cooperation with the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog by the end of August.

The three nations — known collectively as the E3 — delivered the warning in a letter to the U.N., dated Friday, which French Foreign Minister Jean-Nöel Barrot posted Wednesday on X. Co-signed by Barrot and his counterparts from Germany and the United Kingdom, the letter said the countries were ready to trigger the "snapback" mechanism, a process that allows any of the Western parties to restore sanctions if Iran violates the terms of the 2015 nuclear agreement.

"E3 have always committed to use all diplomatic tools at our disposal to ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon," the letter stated. "We have made clear that if Iran is not willing to reach a diplomatic solution before the end of August 2025, or does not seize the opportunity of an extension, E3 are prepared to trigger the snapback mechanism."

Read more: [https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-war-program-threat-nato-countries-iran-sanctions-2113137?utm\_source=reddit&amp;utm\_campaign=reddit\_main](https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-war-program-threat-nato-countries-iran-sanctions-2113137?utm_source=reddit&amp;utm_campaign=reddit_main)

newsweek

See, even Mother Nature has Iran on her shitlist by drying up their water reservoirs. Meanwhile, Netanyahu's just mocking them with a video message holding a pitcher of water and flexing on them by stating how Israel recycles 90% of its waste water and is the leader in desalination--technology which would be available to the Iranian people the moment the regime is gone.  

Get clapped, Ayatollahs.

ExiledYak

ykoech

We live in crazy times. I hope one day we all find peace.

LoveMyKush

Creepy-Fig929

Ohh well done nato. Now what about Isreal or maybe Russia or do they not count . NATO needs  to go or at minimum reformed

i-readit2

Thought we ended irans nuclear aspirations what gives

McGrawHell

Why not the US instead since they made it possible by ending their treaty?

punarob

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


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

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

Interesting-Gear-392


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

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

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

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

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

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

Diplomacy was always going strong until Trump did crazy shit.

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

sabotroned

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

revengeappendage

Layer7Admin

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

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

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

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

GreatSoulLord

Yes it was a good move to leave the deal.

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

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

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

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

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

Inumnient

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

Where are these estimates and by who exactly?

NoVacancyHI

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

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

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

jayzfanacc

[deleted]

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

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

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

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

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

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

rcglinsk

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

random_guy00214

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

worldisbraindead

Problem is, it’s too late. Trump tore up the deal. So makes sense that they would try to get nukes as a deterrent. It’s basic common sense.

Trump threw the diplomacy out the window. Once that happened, Trump ensured that we would be in a war. 

This blame falls on Trump and his supporters

mlamping

Look at North Korea, they really did develop nukes despite being much poorer than Iran. So did Pakistan, Syria was close and South Africa too. 

Also Russia would be more than happy to hand them nuke technologies in exchange for more supplies on the front, I mean why not?

aus_ge_zeich_net

[Here is one of the leading experts who was critical of the Iraq War as it was unfolding, explaining why this is nothing like the Iraq War and why the threat from Iran is legitimate.](https://youtu.be/bS4DJFlqIxs?si=FWU_oJ9jAoHZcRKO)

MakingAnAccountAgain

I appreciate your confidence in the IAEA report.  I'm just not as confident that the report preceded the decision to attack Iran.

MJFields

I think you are all granting Israel a little too much clemency. I am not a fan of some of the more rabid Palestine/Hamas supporters but I find it difficult to actually justify the bombings given the information we have.

Israel's attacks did not actually stop Iran's nuclear program. According to [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/world/china/how-much-damage-have-israeli-strikes-caused-irans-nuclear-programme-2025-06-16/), the majority of the uranium being enriched to 60% is at Fordow (Fordo?), which has been completely undamaged by the attacks and is producing enough uranium to create 4 nuclear bombs if fully enriched. According to a [director of the Arms Control Association](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn840275p5yo), "So long as Fordo remains operational, Iran still poses a near-term proliferation risk" and the only way to destroy it, is through US bunker bombs. However, most people here do not want America to get involved anyways, for various reasons. Even if Fordo could be destroyed, the [Brookings Institute](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/israel-strikes-iran-what-happens-next/) says "most experts believe Iran could reconstitute its nuclear program in a year or two and would likely do so at secret locations, having evicted inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency—requiring repeated attacks for the indefinite future."

Iran also has a stockpile of highly enriched uranium underground, beneath Isfahan, which was, [for some reason, not targeted, although a scientist from the Federation of American Scientists suggested](https://archive.ph/Cr5NM) they deliberately avoided the stockpile to avoid a radiological incident. They damaged the electrical infrastructure of a facility at Natanz, and potentially a number of the centrifuges themselves, they destroy a Pilot Fuel Enrichment plant, and struck a few other uranium metal facilities.

EDIT: For Iran to actually be able to use the uranium for a nuclear weapon, [it would have to be enriched to 90%](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-iran-have-been-close-to-making-a-nuclear-weapon-uranium-enrichment/). The fear is that after Iran enriches to 60%, it becomes significantly easier to enrich to 90% (compared to enriching from 0-60%) and it could be done in a matter of weeks or months, depending on infrastructure. There is one big problem with this argument though - Iran already had enough 60% uranium-235 to produce a nuclear bomb, if fully enriched to 90%, back in [November 2022](https://archive.ph/KLqZa).

[According to various news reports](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/irans-nuclear-program-amid-assessments/story?id=122929192), Iran has 400 kg of 60% uranium-235, enough for "9 bombs" (or 10, depending on the report). So let us assume to make one bomb, you would need to enrich 50 kg of 60% uranium-235, to 90% uranium-235 (a [diplomat](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iaea-report-says-discussions-with-iran-ongoing-enrichment-up-84-2023-02-28/) said 55kg is needed for one bomb). That means they surpassed that number at least as far back as November 2022, because by then they had 62kg of 60% uranium. So if the fear is that Iran is going to enrich from 60%-90% and make bombs soon, why didn't they do that before? Why are these fears being brought up now? If a nuclear bomb is an existential threat to Israel wouldn't it have been an existential threat back then too? Why wait to bomb the facilities until now, if it's so urgent?  
(cont in next post)

Watercress_Upper

The head of the IAEA has stated that he cannot confirm that Iran is weaponizing it's nuclear program. 

"We did not have any proof of a systematic effort to move into a nuclear weapon." from an interview with CNN.

He also said that Nuclear facilities should never be attacked.

"I have repeatedly stated that nuclear facilities must never be attacked, regardless of the context or circumstances, as it could harm both people and the environment.  Such attacks have serious implications for nuclear safety, security and safeguards, as well as regional and international peace and security."

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/statement-on-the-situation-in-iran-13-june-2025

Nightbynight

okitobamberg

Bro, do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you just lying?

"It alleged that Iran had in recent months "taken steps to weaponise" its stockpile of enriched uranium."

Israel is the one who alleged that, not the IAEA. 

I don't really care about what you think it's fine to think Israel is justified in attacking Iran, but you can't make a post and change the one most pivotal fact to something which is not true.

Hrkeol2

I thought the American spy lot said they were years away? Not doing a bit, I still want the fuckers regime changed, but still

Normal-Ear-5757

 I have an idea, Israel agrees to denuclearize, and Iran agrees to stop whatever they are doing, and both are monitored. There, we have zero threat of nuclear strikes in the middle east. problem solved.

Silverwidows

So your ignoring our own intelligence says they aren't even close?

soldiergeneal

People always talk about the Iranian nuclear deal but not the details of it.  The deal was only for 15 years and then after that there were no limitations. It didn’t stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon, just delayed things for 15 years.

sbn23487

Enriching to 60% is a bargaining chip that they need for the negotiations to renew the JCPOA. If they were in compliance with the deal even though we broke the deal and sanctioned them, what incentive do we have to negotiate? They started with 20% back when Trump ripped up the deal, but that didn’t get Biden back to the table either. 

They would not nuke us or Israel. They are not suicidal and we would wipe them off the face of the planet if they did. I know everyone wants to act like the leaders would all be happy to martyr themselves, but that shit is for the masses. The leaders are quite happy with their cushy seat at the top of an oil rich nation. They just want to make their seat a bit cushier by lifting sanctions.

Edit for link: https://www.sipri.org/commentary/essay/2021/why-iran-producing-60-cent-enriched-uranium

Dantheman1386

What kind of incentive structure are you trying to construct for the international community?

If your regime is under sanctions as punishment for violent repression of dissidents and minorities then the only viable path out of those sanctions ought to be the repeal and disavowal of those policies.

Consider the following hypothetical: A child is bullying other students at school. Viciously. Bones are being broken. No amount of punishment stops him, and soon he is expelled. He then starts posting on social media that he’s assembling an arsenal for “the big day”. First he posts his vest, then his new AR, then some high capacity magazines, then a sale order for a few thousand rounds… 

Are we to cave and allow him back into school just to avoid the trouble of it all? A few broken bones to avoid a shootout at his home?

FarmFreshBlueberries

It is legitimate, but it’s more Israel’s problem than ours, and they also actively lobbied and took steps to make it there problem. I say, let them deal with their mess.

Serspork

Israel doesn’t have the ability to take out the nuclear development. Maybe this article’s speculation is correct and Israel delayed it. This is all about trying to draw the US in. The only way to stop them getting nukes is a full scale invasion. Israel can’t do that. 

We can all agree to disagree but I don’t really care enough to endorse invasion to prevent them getting a nuke. No one gets nukes to use nukes post WWII. They use them to bully those without nukes, prevent outside regime change and regional power. Kinda like what Israel is able to do. I don’t care if Israel loses some regional power. Maybe you do. This is the same fear-mongering that Putin does to try to demoralize the west and the same shit that got us into Iraq. 

Also you say they have 60% enrichment and need 90% and your next sentence says they could potentially have 9 nuclear bombs without intervention. When?  I know many here were not old enough to remember Iraq but this situation has a lot of similarities. I don’t spend my nights sleepless because North Korea has nukes and calls for our death.

MegaDuck71

Idk man the amount of ppl I see going mask off in support of religious extremists having the means of wiping out humanity. I’m legit black pilled and terrified.

Viol3t_under

Wow, this post is being invaded by the stupids. "But I Personally dont care if millions get glassed by Iran. Why should we stop them from committing mass murder? &gt;:((((" Amazing point, guys. Never thought about it that way.

Puzzleheaded-Dot-547

So? Why can other countries make nukes and they can't? Trump blew up the deal so why are they now surprised?

Let them have their nuke defence against US and Israel. 

Why does the world let US dictate what or what not we can do military wise?

Ordinary-Violinist-9

Even if we say this was true. Then it's still 100% caused by trump 

And maybe instead of WAR, the ass hat does an ACTUAL DEAL

interventionalhealer

PrimaryPadma

This feels like jumping into the firing line but...Iraq wasn't as insane as it's usually framed. Anthrax and other biological weapons were a real threat at the time, this wasn't just Bush Jr trying to build a legacy of "democracy in the middle east."

Ultimately the threat didn't pan out. But if you think the people in charge of our intelligence services knew that would be the outcome in advance you're giving them way too much credit.

Iran is clearly much worse. But I don't think it's a good idea to passively accept this framing.

Adito99

Fine, then let Israel do the heavy lifting with our weapons. There is no need to involve US troops.

Competitive_Shock783

Potentially does not mean they did do it. They were accused of yhis for more than a decade and never did it. They even let inspectors into every institution in contrast to Israel which doesn't.

I genuienly despise the ayatollas and they should be disposed of rather today than tomorrow but Israel was the threat for Iran. Not the other way around. This attack is the reason why it would be reasonable for them to want a bomb.

RoyalCharity1256

Masamun_3

Nobody uses nukes. Many countries have them but no one ever uses them. The threat of nukes is overrated.

gravitywind1012

Iranian here. totally agree with 90% of what you said.

Also majority of ppl in iran still want and hope for a regime change and anybody telling you otherwise is a liar!

OmiD-WM

mr_molten

I fully understand that Iran can create a Nuke in a short amount of time. The entire world has known this for over a decade. Iran could of had a Nuke ready years ago if they put their mind to it but they still have not built one. To me that shows quite a bit of restraint on Irans behalf. How about we make an Obama type deal with them instead of going to war with a country with 92 Million people?

Wallyworld77

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

[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.*

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

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

The UK, France, and Germany are prepared to reimpose sanctions on Iran unless it resumes nuclear negotiations by the end of August.

Iran Nuclear Deal and Sanctions

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want