Public opinion is polarized regarding the Iran Nuclear Crisis, with significant sympathy toward Iran due to perceived hypocrisy in Western sanctions, alongside skepticism about Iran's reliability in nuclear agreements. Many viewers criticize the U.S. and its allies for their double standards, especially in comparison to Israel, while others express doubts about Iran's past compliance and intentions, fearing flawed negotiations.

United States

Iran

European Allies

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

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

Violators will be fed to the bear.

---

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

AutoModerator

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

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

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

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

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

8to24

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

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

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

mormagils

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

Goldeneagle41

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

CarefulScreen9459

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

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

Dropping_A_Deuce

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

eyl569

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

maybeafarmer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pompous_One

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

sirswantepalm

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

FrogsEverywhere

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

theanchorist

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

Sebt1890

No.

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

YnotBbrave

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

KevinCarbonara

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

Stopper33

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

SlightlyOTT

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

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

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

And that's admittedly not easy.  

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

But here we are.  

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

serpentjaguar

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

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

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

#webroke
#weneedmoney
#theeconomy

May sounds weird, but that how it popped out.

VeekaVeeks



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

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

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

(cit 4) 

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

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



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

discourse_friendly

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

dendron01

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That seemed likely to happen either way.

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

Kman17

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

aworldwithoutshrimp

Yes and no.

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

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

Kronzypantz

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

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

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

MilfordSparrow

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

Responsible_Rock_573

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

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

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

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

Middle-Name-2739

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

harrumphstan

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

Unfair-Ad1675

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

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

So far it's working.

SunderedValley

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

MJcorrieviewer

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

SinisterBarrister

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

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

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

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

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

NekoCatSidhe

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

mrjcall

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

redit0930

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

petdoc1991

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

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

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

InFearn0

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

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

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

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

Reld720

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

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

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

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

judge_mercer

[deleted]

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

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

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

RCA2CE

Under the JCPOA, which suspended United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran, the signatory states — including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (known as E3) — may call for a Security Council vote to reconsider the suspension of sanctions. The expiration date of this clause allowing the reimposition of sanctions is mid-October.

It is sufficient for one E3 country to invoke this clause in the agreement, followed by an American veto in the ensuing Security Council vote, in order to reinstate sanctions on Iran.

-Cohen_Commentary-

Britain, France, and Germany are triggering UN sanctions on Iran to force real inspections or consequences.

ChiefFun

On fait tout pour rendre l'arme nucléaire absolument indispensable pour un pays qui a toujours respecté les accords et était sous surveillance, leur leader suprême a déclaré une fatwa contre l'arme nucléaire depuis les années 2000, c'est littéralement un blasphème de les construire, et la seule raison pour laquelle certains veulent revenir la dessus c'est la volonté manifeste et documenté des USA de transformer l'iran en libye ou syrie. Et celle d'israel évidemment.

l'iran a accepté des conditions intenables pour un état souverain et on leur demande quand même de renoncer y compris aux formes civils de nucléaire.

Et nous on se soumet à la volonté américaine ou alors on la partage ce qui est pire

L2pZehus

they have no need but they still try to comply.
why aren't other countries under such scrutiny ?

Prize-Grapefruiter

These talks will 100% fail. Iran wants to get the nuke after what happen, USA and Israel will invade Iran next year, just before the mid term elections, to stop the elections in USA and keep the country on the fascist path.

lowkeymanbearpig

SheWasSpeaking

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

&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?

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

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

European powers have triggered a process to reimpose UN sanctions on Iran for nuclear agreement violations, escalating tensions in the region.

Iran Nuclear Crisis and Sanctions

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want