Public opinion is polarized, with a notable division between support for Iran's defiance against external pressures, particularly from the US, and critical perspectives on Western policies regarding Iran's nuclear program. Many commenters express solidarity with Iran's right to pursue nuclear capabilities as a means of self-defense while condemning the actions of the US and its allies, reflecting a complex blend of national pride and skepticism towards international diplomacy.

Iran

United States

Israel

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

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

[deleted]

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

The largest non-nuclear weapons in the world were dropped on their nuclear development facilities. It defies common sense that this would be “a few months to rebuild the sites.” I understand the facilities are deep under ground, but even reconstructing access tunnels with the assumption the facilities themselves are completely unharmed is not some small task. Especially when Israel and the US are on standby ready to bomb them again if they try. 

And taking right and wrong out of the equation, the goal was to stifle Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Iran’s actions have basically broadcasted to the world that they have nuclear ambitions, their rivals are not going to assume it is just for show. The US and Israel made it clear they will not accept Iran as a nuclear state. 

Trump pulling out of the JCPOA was probably a mistake, but that’s not the view in question here.

CobraPuts

First of off no that is not the IAEA assessment as other commenters have pointed out. But seriously, you either enrich uranium to make a nuke or a nuclear power plant. Do you really think Iran is going for a nuclear power plant?

YouJustNeurotic

 Iran was happily complying with the IAEA 

No, it definitely was not, even before the Israeli strikes  
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164291](https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164291)

Now obviously yes iran has 60% enriched uranium

Which has no other purpose except one and by having such , it was violating the NPT by possessing enriched uranium above 20%(Heck for them it is not even that high because their reactor works with lower levels)

The main reason iran ramped up nuclear enrichment to get to 60% in the first place lies in geopolitical factors after trump pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal back in 2018 it made no sense for iran to keep its word and so it began which is how we got to the 60% enrichment uranium situation.

A deal that was widely decried across the Middle East because it did nothing to end Iran's ballistic missile program and it allowed Iran to access funds that it later funnelled to Assad, Hezbollah, the Houthis and millitias in Iraq.   
It is tiring how people keep acting like the JCPOA was a solution to making Iran a friendly nation when in reality that brief period during which it was active, it played a major role in destabilizing the Levant and and allowed Iran to advance goals of trying to destroy Israel(and in return, bringing misery to all nations that were hosting Iranian proxies, usually against their will when Israel retaliated)  
Iran did not just get over $50 billion to prop up Assad from nowhere. It did not just get money to arm Hamas and Hezbollah from its own people only.

Now look at north Korea. its pretty obvious the US would invade it at any chance it could get but it cant, why? Nuclear weapons.

More to do with the fact that it is nearly impossible to enter Korean society undetected as it is truly a closed society. Iran is not. Espionage in Korea is nearly impossible while espionage in Iran is actually easy. Sabotaging North Korea is close to impossible because the locals are truly brainwashed ,with minimal to no contact with outsiders and thus any anomalies are easily detected.  
Meanwhile Mossad sits in the Iranian parliament, worked at the now destroyed Basij HQ, once made up most of the Anti-Mossad agency(which was the funniest thing ever and very believable given who admitted to this; Ahmadinejad), is in the IRGC, is in Khamenei's office.  
  
Second of all it is not merely because of nuclear weapons, but because it possesses them and Seoul is like what, 60km from the North Korean border and Japan is not that far either.  
Iran's enemy is over 1500km away and that enemy is operating bases inside Iran that directly sabotage missile launchers.  
The two cannot be compared.

Let's also note that further more these attacks have now caused iran to suspend compliance with IAEA as voted in the parliament. 

Which is largely a rubberstamp for Khamenei and the IRGC and all they have done is get a target on their backs.

In reality, the regime is widely hated and if it ever tries to get a nuke. Even Chinese shipments of oil will no longer happen even through the Malaysian cloaks that they use. They would start to regress to North Korean levels where they don't even get fertilizer and harvest human waste to use in agriculture. And that alone would trigger multiple uprisings against the regime if they got even a small taste of that kind of biting sanctions.

These recent attacks by israel and iran proved that if iran truly wants to be safe it needs nukes.  
  
I strongly believe that the moment that they try that, there will truly be regime change through force and what happened to Hezbollah will happen to the regime from top to bottom.

Brilliant-Lab546

I would like to correct you on a minor point. North Korea's main deterrence is not really the nukes, it never was. North Korea has a bunch of hills fortified, filled with artillery, that all point at Seoul. The reason no one screws with North Korea is because they could cause immense damage to the 25 million people living in the greater capital area.

NiceMicro

&gt;First off from what we know, Iran was happily complying with the IAEA 

I encourage you to read this [IAEA report ](https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-25.pdf)from May 2025. They were certainly not complying with their commitments at the time. There is considerable evidence they were never complying with the requirement to limit stockpile to 300kg of LEU and 0kg of HEU, based on the not-declared-in-2016 storage facility in Turquzabad.

They also definitely weren't happy about it, because they stonewalled and supplied obviously BS explanations to the IAEA about a dozen times cited in this report.

&gt;and just days before the early June strikes on the nuclear facilities IAEA Director Rafeal Grossi stated there was no definitive proof that iran had planned or was planning to build a nuke. US intelligence including testimony from DNI Tulsi Gabbard confirmed that there was so effort from iran to build a nuke as the iranian supreme leader had not authorised the building of one.

Iran's breakout time was down to a matter of weeks, and that's just based on what Iran showed the IAEA inspectors. As you mention, they very likely have undisclosed nuclear sites beyond that. As such, if you wait for definitive proof they are building a nuke, they're going to have it before you can react.

&gt;I believe as of now iran is trying to deter enemies by showing capabilities of building a nuke. but clearly that has failed not only have these attacks mostly united most Iranians that are against the regime (both are enemies in the eyes of Iranians but the bigger threats are israel and the US) but now more than ever are both civilains and political figures in iran considering or pushing for the option of nuclear weaponization.

Iran's nuclear program does the opposite of deter their enemies. Iranian deterrence was, until 5 minutes ago, their proxy network.

I believe their nuclear program is more of a domestic politics thing. The Iranian government has a set of hardliners they need to appease, and since Trump exited the nuclear deal the moderates have no ground to stand on regarding an exit from nuclear enrichment. Particularly, I don't think the Iranian government can exit the nuclear program due to pressure from America without major domestic blowback.

&gt;realistically speaking these nukes might be the only way for the regime to survive from external threats.

This makes no sense. America isn't going for a regime change war after Iraq turned out like it did. Israel is too small to even contemplate a ground war, and air power alone has never caused regime change. Saudi Arabia can't even regime change Yemen.

SmokingPuffin

Can have a source for the 83% enrichment? That begs the question, where is that uranium at?

There is no commercial use for 60% + enrichment as far as I am aware. Even if Iran was sour about the deal, it doesn’t explain the progress. If Iran was genuinely only developing for commercial then further enrichment would be unnecessary and is even costly to do.

Appropriate_Fly_6711

Iran was most certainly not "complying with the IAEA and just days before the early June strikes on the nuclear facilities."


https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164291

Thumatingra

A few premises of yours are flawed and too certain, which I think makes you too certain in your conclusion.

\&gt; These recent attacks by israel and iran proved that if iran truly wants to be safe it needs nukes.

1) There are plenty of safe countries without nuclear weapons. Iran could try a lot of things to be safer: stop trying to enrich uranium, stop funding terrorist proxies, stop making a huge part of their identity the death of Israel and the US, build better diplomatic relationships, win actual favor with their people. Plenty of countries accomplish all this and are safe.

2) Even if we assume that having a nuke makes you perfectly safe, these attacks prove that while on your way to a nuke, you are incredibly unsafe. It's going to be a lot harder to get people to fill all kinds of important roles in the future. Nuclear scientists, for instance.

3) Even if they are safe from attacks from outside actors in terms of a direct military conflict, they can still face sanctions and icing out of relations. We've learned this from Russia and North Korea. Other countries are going to go hard on them with carrots and sticks to denuclearize once they nuclearize.

4) They're still not safe from internal attacks or terrorism from non-state actors or "non-state" actors (think India/Pakistan but now Israel/Iran).

\&gt; Lesser chance of diplomatic talks like the 2015 deal

I don't think this is necessarily true. The US and Israel  just revealed that they will actually do serious attacks. This is how you prove you're not all talk. It's like the opposite of what's happened in the past when red lines were crossed. Before Israel attacked, Iran put some probably on these kinds of attacks. Now they know for a certainty they'll happen. Maybe they'll think it's time to cash out their nuclear chips.

I mean this is a complicated situation. But it is not an irreconcilable thing like a territory dispute like Israel/Palestine or Russia/Ukraine. It's about things like both sides feeling "safe" and other more psychological things like that. There are pathways where both sides are relatively happier at the conclusion.

I'm not saying that we're definitely better off. But you are too certain with calling this a bad decision. We'll know as time goes on and we're hopefully not incinerated in the coming years/months/hours.

NutellaBananaBread

Pretty much I actually just acknowledged this in my last post, but yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised if Iran starts toward a nuke, if not maybe have one in an ally country maybe? 

It’s crazy though, the USA and Israel who have nukes were telling the country without nukes that they need to not have nukes

stevie-antelope

#####&amp;#009;

######&amp;#009;

####&amp;#009;

&gt; # [Iran president signs law suspending cooperation with IAEA](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/12977024-1751447628.jpg?resize=1920%2C1344)
&gt;   
&gt;   
&gt;   
&gt; *Iran is also considering an entry ban on IAEA chief Rafael Grossi, after rejecting his request to visit nuclear sites.*
&gt;   
&gt; Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has signed a law suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), amid growing tensions between Tehran and the UN nuclear watchdog following Israeli and US attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities last month.
&gt;   
&gt; “Masoud Pezeshkian promulgated the law suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Iranian state TV reported on Wednesday.
&gt;   
&gt; The announcement comes a week after Iran’s parliament passed legislation to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, citing [Israel’s June 13 surprise attack on Iran](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/13/sounds-of-explosions-heard-in-irans-capital-tehran) and [later strikes by the US](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/22/us-bombs-irans-nuclear-sites-what-we-know-so-far) on Iranian nuclear facilities.
&gt;   
&gt; According to the parliament resolution, IAEA inspectors will not be allowed to visit nuclear sites without approval from Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.
&gt;   
&gt;   
&gt;   
&gt; In response to Pezeshkian formally enacting the suspension, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar urged European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal to trigger the “snapback” mechanism and reinstate all UN sanctions on Iran.
&gt;   
&gt; The snapback, set to expire in October, was part of the nuclear accord that collapsed after the United States withdrew in 2018. Iran began scaling back commitments a year later.
&gt;   
&gt; Germany said Iran’s decision sends a “disastrous signal”.
&gt;   
&gt; “For a diplomatic solution it is essential for Iran to work with the IAEA,” foreign ministry spokesman Martin Giese told reporters.
&gt;   
&gt; The IAEA in a statement said it was “awaiting further official information from Iran”.
&gt;   
&gt; Growing tensions
&gt; - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - --
&gt;   
&gt; Since Israel launched its assault on Iran last month,Tehran has sharply criticised the IAEA.
&gt;   
&gt; Iran’s foreign minister earlier this week said IAEA chief Rafael Grossi was no longer welcome in the country.
&gt;   
&gt; Officials have also criticised Grossi over a June 12 resolution passed by the IAEA board accusing Tehran of non-compliance with its nuclear obligations.
&gt;   
&gt; Iranian officials said the resolution was among the “excuses” for the Israeli attacks that began on June 13 and lasted for 12 days.
&gt;   
&gt; Iran has also [rejected a request](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/30/iran-hardens-stance-against-iaea-and-its-chief-in-wake-of-us-israel-attacks) from IAEA chief Grossi to visit nuclear facilities bombed during the war.
&gt;   
&gt;   
&gt;   
&gt; “Grossi’s insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent,” said Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on X on Monday. “Iran reserves the right to take any steps in defence of its interests, its people and its sovereignty.”
&gt;   
&gt; Earlier this week, Pezeshkian decried Grossi’s “destructive” conduct, while France, Germany and the United Kingdom have condemned unspecified “threats” made against the IAEA chief.
&gt;   
&gt; Iran’s ultra-conservative Kayhan newspaper recently claimed that documents showed Grossi was an Israeli spy and should be executed.
&gt;   
&gt; Iran has insisted no threats were posed against Grossi or the agency’s inspectors.
&gt;   
&gt; The 12-day war began when Israel carried out a surprise bombardment of Iranian nuclear facilities and military sites and assassinated several top military commanders and nuclear scientists. Tehran responded with waves of missiles and drones at Israel.
&gt;   
&gt;   
&gt;   
&gt; On June 22, Israel’s ally, the US, launched unprecedented strikes of its own on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz. A ceasefire between Iran and Israel [took hold on June 24](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/24/israel-and-iran-agree-ceasefire-amid-waves-of-missiles).
&gt;   
&gt; At least 935 people were killed in Israeli attacks on Iran, according to judiciary spokesperson Asghar Jahangir, citing the latest forensic data. The deceased included 132 women and 38 children, Jahangir added.
&gt;   
&gt; Iran’s retaliatory attacks killed 28 people in Israel, according to authorities.
&gt;   
&gt; US President Donald Trump said the US attacks had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear programme, though the extent of the damage was not clear.
&gt;   
&gt; Araghchi has admitted that “serious” damage has been inflicted on nuclear sites.
&gt;   
&gt; But in a recent interview with US media outlet CBS Evening News, he said: “One cannot obliterate the technology and science… through bombings.”
&gt;   
&gt; Israel and some Western countries say Iran has sought nuclear weapons – an ambition Tehran has consistently denied.
&gt; - - - - - -


- - - - - -

[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleado-estatal-bot-2) | [Stats](https://empleado.urielsalis.com/)

empleadoEstatalBot

This all started cause the crayon eater we have as leader of the free world atm decided that he didn't like the deal cause Obama made it. Iran by all accounts was sticking to the deal. This is entirely a trump made fuck up that is probably gonna fuck the world in some way.

DavidSwifty

I mean, I don't blame Iran. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Try to cooperate and negotiate to have sanctions lifted, have pro-Israel US Presidents destroy those plans.

On the subject of the IAEA, I wondered why they suddenly issued a report which essentially manufactured consent for an attack on Iran? Despite US intelligence directly contradicting that only a few months ago.

This article digs into the background of how this happened, which is quite revealing. The US pressured board members to change their vote. It's a topic that has gotten little media coverage.

[How the US and Israel Used Rafael Grossi to Hijack the IAEA and Start a War on Iran](https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/how-the-us-and-israel-used-rafael-grossi-to-hijack-the-iaea-and-start-a-war-on-iran)

Ironically, the US did the exact same back in 1947 and bullied countries into changing their vote for the UN Partition Plan, leading to the creation of Israel. Plus ça change.

redelastic

There’s some pretty interesting reporting from the past few days about how MI6 infiltrated the IAEA to engineer the Casus Belli needed to bomb Iran’s enrichment facilities.

Iran seems to be convinced that the IAEA was giving Israel details on their nuclear scientists for assassination purposes. Mossad once used a remote controlled machine gun to assassinate an Iranian scientist.

https://thegrayzone.com/2025/07/01/spying-iran-mi6-infiltrated-iaea/

I suspect now that the cautious old guard has either been killed or proven demonstrably wrong that Iran’s nuclear weapon posture will change dramatically in secret. The only thing keeping Iran from becoming an inevitable failed state at this point is a successful nuclear demonstration.

2dudesinapod

Honestly saying this as objectively as possible can anyone blame Iran for trying to build nuclear weapons now? 


Even if you hate their government the only ones you can realistically blame for this is Israel and the US even if you wanted to somehow argue that Iran was going to reneg on the deal (in which case why bother even feigning acting like your going to uphold it against one of the best intelligence agencies in the world) Iran wasn't the one to publicly backtrack on the deal America was. 


Now that you weren't bound by that prepositional deal you choose to enrich your supplies since ya know they broke the deal an enemy force just attacks your capital (something you know they wouldn't do if you had built the nukes) to the cheers of the whole world (notably Germany) and the G7 saying verbatim the one that attacked you has the right to defend itself (would love to see them all respond to the idea of Russia doing the same but logic goes out the window for Israel)


Yh if I'm Iran doesn't matter if I'm a communist extremist or capitalist a nuke is the only sensible thing to do in this situation and if I'm a third party I'm definitely inclined to look at this whole Shambolic affair and start getting busy too 

Iran was punished for *not* building nuclear weapons, and they gained nothing and lost a lot for cooperating with the Obama nuclear deal and the IAEA. 

Of course they’re going to want to have their own nukes now, that’s the only way they can safeguard their sovereignty since Israel and the US have made it clear they want regime change and are happy to bomb their capital city and research facilities.

SurfiNinja101

Hey, I was about to post that. My consolation prize is I'll post some additional related news in this comment:

###[Iran made preparations to mine the Strait of Hormuz, US sources say](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-made-preparations-mine-strait-hormuz-us-sources-say-2025-07-01/) (Reutes)

&gt;* Mines loaded last month, raising fears of blockade

&gt;* Mining would have severely harmed global commerce

&gt;* U.S. has not ruled out possibility that loading the mines was a ruse

&gt;The Iranian military loaded naval mines onto vessels in the Persian Gulf last month, a move that intensified concerns in Washington that Tehran was gearing up to blockade the Strait of Hormuz following [Israel's strikes on sites across Iran](https://archive.is/o/zgvg4/https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-announces-israel-iran-ceasefire-2025-06-23/), according to two U.S. officials.

&gt;The previously unreported preparations, which were detected by U.S. intelligence, occurred some time after Israel launched its initial missile attack against Iran on June 13, said the officials, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence matters.

&gt;The loading of the mines - which have not been deployed in the strait - suggests that Tehran may have been serious about closing one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, a move that would have escalated an already-spiraling conflict and severely hobbled global commerce.

Naurgul

This isn't really much of a surprise.

Here's a hard to swallow fact:  any determined state with sufficient resources can build nuclear weapons, and bombing them to stop them increases their incentive to do so.

jcooli09

It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).

Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/2/iran-president-signs-law-suspending-cooperation-with-iaea](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/2/iran-president-signs-law-suspending-cooperation-with-iaea)**

*****

 ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why &amp; About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)

AmputatorBot

I am not a fan of the Islamic Republic (although Iran is cool in my book). Despite them being a theocracy they seem to have been the reasonable ones in this big debacle. I don’t blame them at all for saying “fuck it” when it comes to international laws and obligations. They have no reason to trust the international order.

superdupercereal2

The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit [user flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair), and must strictly comply with [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/anime_titties/about/rules). Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned. 

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

What is even the meaning of this inside of Iran's governing mechanism? From what I understand the parliament and president are pretty much filling an advisory role to the Supreme Leader. Does him signing the law actually puts in into effect?

SirStupidity

Gonna get banned for this, but so be it.

Criticizing Israel for Gaza, I can see, I can get. But rooting for Iran just because it's Israel enemy? This is beyond wild. Putting aside the argument regarding whether Iran was developing nuclear weapons or not (Since each side would argue the other one is lying) during the Obama deal, one only need to look at the actions of Iran as a country to be against it having nuclear weapons:

1. Expressed goals of destruction of Israel and USA - Including a clock in a center square counting to the destruction of Israel
2. Extremist Religious Dictatorship - No religious freedom, Religious police, Extremely limited women's rights, being homosexual is grounds for imprisonment and execution.
3. Support for organizations responsible for countless death - Supported the Houthis in Yemen in a conflict that led to 200k + casualties and mass starvation. Support for the Assad regime and it's violent actions against Syrians with 300k + casualties. Support for Russia in the Russian-Ukrainian war. And I'm probably missing a few.

Hating Israel is one thing, I obviously don't agree, but I can see why. But being pro-Iran just because it's Israel's opponent, there is no justification for this. There is a reason that even countries that are vocally anti-Israel in the Gaza conflict supported those actions (Like France).

Goldjoz

And just like that. Maga is not anti war anymore.

micro_penis_max

I think this would be a big deal regardless but I think this situation comes back to trumps foreign policy. In his first term he pulled out of the Iran deal. Leaving no way for us to monitor them or structure in place to prevent them from getting nukes. He seemed to have no real plan for stopping that and now we are here with them nearly having a bomb. It also proved to them any deal made with us is irrelevant as the next president can just leave and that we are not a country of our word. That basically takes a diplomatic option off the table or at least makes it far more difficult to achieve. 

So given he's already made a mess of the situation and seems to have little understanding of respect for diplomacy and deescalating situations I think it's concerning that he's the one in charge as this is happening.

Raddatatta

"This wouldn't be as big a deal if someone who didn't run on the promise of no more wars was president."

stevejuliet

It wouldn’t be a big deal to people who look at politics like sports and pick sides like they pick teams. I don’t care who is president, we do not need to involve ourselves in a foreign conflict. Let alone if you run on a platform that states you are the candidate of peace and that you do not support foreign wars and then you do the opposite of what you said. I will hold you accountable. Maybe you have no morals and don’t care about politicians lying blatantly to your face. But unlike you I have morals and I hold people accountable.

THEGEARBEAR

Yeah, Iran sucks.  


It's a big deal because we literally just left Ukraine against a real adversary because we "need to avoid new wars at all costs"

Frankly, foreign psyops are running roughshod over this country.  It's time to take social media away from people over 50.  You guys just aren't evolved to use it.

Dapper_Platform_1222

J_J_Plumber5280

I'm pretty sure people would still care, maybe some liberals would find excuses for it, but yes people would care.

RedMarsRepublic

For a second i mistakenly read Trump is a pretender. 🤣

vopoogenie

You are right in some aspects. Yes most of US foreign policy was focused on war mongering around the world for many years. Creating ideological enemies conveniently where there are natural resources to be had.

Everything else I disagree with. The following is why it’s a big deal as actions speak louder than words.
1. This shows Trumps whole America first ideology is a sham. Only use it where it benefits him.
2. US is avidly supporting a govt like Israel who are actively involved in genocide as we speak. Where is your “we are the ideological hero’s of the world” when it comes to Israel? They are a much larger threat to the world than Iran.
3. Trump can lie through his teeth and his supporters will kneel to his feet. Quite pathetic to watch.

Kalojaam

Trump does make bad promises or says things in between lines. Also we all have observed his manipulation within his own words. He does speak like a school bully as you all may have noticed. Does he deserve such importance?

Yep. The usual "oh god, crazy trumps going to start ww3", even though its the same activity that goes on under every president

alexoid182

So true!
Iran and it's caveman mentality can go to hell.

throwawayfor_secrets

Iran is negotiating to prevent the reimposition of UN sanctions under the 2015 nuclear deal amid intense scrutiny over its nuclear program.

Iran Nuclear Deal Sanctions Threat

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want