Public sentiment is highly polarized regarding Iran's nuclear program and the reinstated UNSC sanctions. Many users express outrage over perceived hypocrisy in international politics, particularly with respect to Israel's actions, and call for solidarity against what they view as unfair double standards. There is a strong desire among commenters for Iran to pursue its nuclear capabilities both as a countermeasure to Western aggression and for national defense. However, skepticism remains regarding Iran's intentions and Western military aggression, resulting in a complex public narrative.

Iran

United States

United Nations

Israel

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

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

Violators will be fed to the bear.

---

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

AutoModerator

At this point they would be better served by building their nuclear weapon capacity in China, Russia, or North Korea and clandestinely moving the weapons back into Iran.  Nothing the US could do about it as China, Russia, and North Korea are all nuclear capable with the means to launch into America or American interests.  That's probably the next move for Iran.  Simply build those weapons where the US is afraid to attack.

UnusualAir1

The one you’re missing is that at a minimum Israel is going to continue to hit anything that they can ID as even tangentially associated with the Iranian nuclear program basically as soon as they can.   

With Iran’s proxies having been rendered effectively impotent as far as Israel is concerned (as well as Israel apparently having thoroughly penetrated the Iranian government), Iran no longer has a deniable way to counter Israeli actions without risking US (or other 3rd party) involvement.

DanforthWhitcomb_

Probably 2, to be honest. And not just because it is always safe to assume that Trump is lying.

The Iranians had one week to remove all the uranium (and probably everything that was not bolted on) from the targeted sites. Al Jazeera even had a nice satellite picture of a long line of trucks around Fordow a couple of days ago, which is probably when it happened. They may have been badly outgunned, but that doesn't mean they were stupid.

The Iranian nuclear agency said there was no danger of radioactive contamination from the destroyed sites because all nuclear materials has been removed, and if that is a lie, it is a stupid one because you can easily measure the radioactivity around the sites and if people start dying of cancer because of the lie, there would be a huge backlash in the future.

No one knows if Fordow actually got completely destroyed or not, because it was built deep underground and we only have satellite pictures to assess the damage. But there were doubts a few days ago about whether the much lauded bunker buster bombs that Trump hit it with would even work as advertised.

And of course it is likely that Iran has built other underground sites that we don't know about, where they could transfer everything they removed from Fordow and rebuild their nuclear program.

If it was that easy to completely stop their nuclear program just by bombing Iran, it would have been done a long time ago. It probably only set it back by a year or so. It is pretty naive to think you can solve every problem only through brute force.

NekoCatSidhe

Delayed by years, they might have moved the uranium but they could not have moved the centrifuges.

neloish

Bet: some uranium moved, but not all. Otherwise why wouldn't Israel just demolish the new location and not ask Trump to destroy Fordow?

YnotBbrave

You are missing:

5. **Essential facilities were undamaged, uranium safely moved.** Iran has around 12-13 known nuclear facilities and only 3 received noticeable strikes. USA/Israel hit:

* A centrifuge factory (not the only one in the country and Iran has more than enough to enrich uranium to make 50-100 bombs atm in a few months).
* Storage facilities that was emptied before any strikes and only received minor damage (caved-in entrances).
* One of several research facilities (not that Iran needs any further "research" anyway).

The Iranian nuclear was thus mostly delayed by the chaos in the country/murdered scientists than the actual bombardment to their facilities.

TripolarKnight

It is seemingly in Trump's interests to pacify the Israelis and the Iranians while looking tough with some mutual strikes with advanced warning and evacuations and now he wants it to blow over and go back to business as usual. 

It is the interests of the Israelis to neutralize the threat Iran has posed by opposing the existence of the State of Israel and funding Hamas and striking Israel. Iran vehemently opposes Zionism and US support of Zionism. 

Iran can and probably did move the refined uranium but not the equipment used to make it without more time. They have redundant facilities. The US didn't completely destroy their targets and did not target all facilities. Iran is using nuclear weapons as leverage. They don't actually want them, its against their religion and the weapons are very costly. They want security and they want the state of Israel to disappear. They may feel like the only way to get security is to build a bomb and they're going to use it as security against getting bullied. They will just threaten Israel with nuclear weapons every time there is any skirmish between them. There will likely be fewer direct skirmishes but Iran will still fund proxies opposed to Zionism. Israel will have fewer options to strike Iran and will have increased risk of attack by proxy. 

The nukes should be all a game of nuclear chicken but may result in an exchange between the nations. If there is an exchange between them the likely outcome is both have their major population centers annihilated and US boots are probably going to occupy and stabilize the areas and provide nuclear disaster assistance. Let us all hope they do not use the nukes.

VeryPogi

I would say the most likely scenario right now from what we know is that the Uranium was moved, there is satellite imaging of a bunch of trucks at the facility before the attack.


It's also likely the facility was damaged, based on debris blown out of a ventilation shaft. The level of damage isn't really possible to determine yet though. It could be totally destroyed and basically unsalvageable, it could be largely intact. We just don't know much beyond that a pressure change probably happened in the facility that blew some dust out. 


I would assume at this point Israel really wants to get their hands on the enriched Uranium, or at least deprive Iran of it. They would probably also want to get better Intel on the state of Iran's underground facilities, and maybe want to hit then again, although that would require the US to perform another strike. 

ScoobiusMaximus

Based on US, Saudi, and Israeli intelligence, Iran still has their stockpile of 400kg 60% enriched U235.

The fact that Israel knows where it is and didn't target it likely means that Iran is holding it in downtown Tehran, probably under a Hospital or something. This is classic religious fanatic 101, using human shields when all else fails. We saw Hamas do this in Gaza. 

The real danger here is that Iran might start digging under Tehran and building centrifuges there. If Israel gets wind that Iran is enriching this U235 further under Tehran, then will bomb it and there will be a radiation disaster in downtown Tehran, and it will be Iran's fault.

Alpha_ii_Omega

Of the four possibilities you presented, I think number 2 is the most likely situation. We even intercepted intel from Iran that confirms that is the case. 

Short term, they will probably do the best they can to keep the ceasefire going to lick their wounds. 

Long term, Iran will probably seek closer relations with a great power. Most likely China as Russia is still to caught up in the Ukraine conflict to be useful. Iran will seek the nuclear bomb, even more so now that the diplomatic moderates have been so thoroughly humiliated and the government gets taken over by hardliners. Peaceful denuclearization is now 100% off the table, and we threw that away when Trump ripped up the Iran nuclear deal. The only way they can prevent another flash point like this from happening is to have the bomb or be under someone's nuclear umbrella.

josh34583

The facility was definitely cooked, it’s very unlikely the US and Israel would not have seen the movement of nuclear material, the amount of UAV and spy satellites we have. The question is whether the nuclear material was destroyed, the centrifuges are likely damaged or destroyed. They can always rebuild though

viti1470

 Russia and or China could give Iran nukes.  Similar to the way they gave them to North Korea.

RobotAlbertross

Depends on the US success in attacking the facilities. Most likely option 2. 

But that depends if the US destroyed the facility completely and the regime collapses before Iran has time to regroup for a counterattack, but its ultimately turning into a mixed bag:

1 - The facilities may be heavily damaged, but I don't think they're beyond repair.

2 - At the same time, Khamenei is in hiding with no clear successor, with opportunists popping up offering to take over Iran. This is signalling imminent regime collapse, with the outcome being another leader favorable to the West at best, and a power vacuum at worst. 

3 - While it has been confirmed the enriched uranium was safely moved elsewhere, I am pretty sure they are nearby, probably somewhere in Aghanistan *at most*. If they had a cargo plane Israel/US would've intercepted it by now. It had to have been transported by ground.

I think Israel and the US are in a situation where if they don't achieve a decisive victory against Iran now, Iran will come back with a vengeance later and accelerate their nuclear weapons program as fast as possible. This is a regime that *cannot* be given a chance to get back up after this beating. That outcome will be much more dangerous to the region and the world by extension.

swagonflyyyy

Well, they could probably turn it into a golf course. I hear they have the first three holes already

-Foxer

I hope Iran breaks through nuclear energy as soon as possible and I hope they share the knowledge with the entire world. Fuck the U.S. control on nuclear energy.

DChristy87

Trump lied. Are we surprised? 60% of enrichenmenr buried BELOW ground. Periodt.



Have a good day kids.

VeekaVeeks

Simple.  If Iran attempts a reconstitution of the program, Trump will bomb them again.  Next question?

mrjcall

&gt; Trump’s claiming the facilities were “obliterated,” while Iran says they moved their 60% enriched uranium to a secret location.

This could both be true. As far as preventing the development of a nuclear bomb, it's way more important to destroy the centrifuges than to bomb the uranium that Iran already has. In fact, they may have *wanted* Iran to remove the uranium first to prevent serious nuclear fallout.

To refine weapons grade uranium, you need precision-engineered centrifuges - and you need a lot of them. These are tightly controlled with export regulations, so they're easily the hardest and most expensive part of the nuclear bomb equation to obtain.

Meanwhile, Iran has 60% enriched uranium which is much higher than required for power generation but still is not high enough to build a bomb. Most of their highly-enriched stockpile was refined in the last few months, which underscores how (relatively) easy this is to obtain. 

I would not be surprised if the US saw the Iranians evacuating the uranium and waited until that was done to strike. That's total speculation my part but dropping bunker buster bombs on uranium seems like a recipe for a nuclear disaster. The real target would be the centrifuges. Without them, this uranium is good for nothing other than a power plant.

UnfoldedHeart

A shift from seeking a nuclear weapon to seeking the development of dirty bombs is a possibility if Iran manages to keep its already enriched uranium from emptying out of hidden stocks.

Instead of blowing up entire cities, giving one's enemies and their families early cancer as well as other health problems is a potential form of terror that the Iranian government might pursue if they're fanatic enough.

If the USA doesn't NOW fully commit to wiping out Iran's government and securing its uranium stockpiles, then talks and delusions of ceasefire may actually hurt the USA more in the long run.

Storyteller-Hero

There are photos of a large caravan leaving at least one site, prior to the attack when the whole world could see all the bombers moving to the Middle East.

Tex-Rob

It’s an unknowable answer.  It’s not clear how far their nuclear program was.  Israel lied about it for 20+ years.  The Trump regime has made the US completely untrustworthy.  What if there never was a nuclear program?

JDogg126

Iran had no intention of building a nuclear weapon. They were enriching uranium as a bargaining chip but mostly for energy. 10 years ago they realized that building a nuke that was deliverable by an ICBM was going to be more complicated than worth it. This is why they negotiated the deal with Obama and France. After Trump screwed that up they enriched 300ish kg to 60% as another barning chip knowing that going to 90% would take only few months. However, that would be enough for one implosion bomb that is huge and needs a bomber plane to deliver which is pretty pointless with today's SAM systems.
What Trump just did is a nothing burger. He just proved that he growls at the feet of Israel. He has a chance to redeem himself after he realized he was played by them with the whole "ceasefire"  thing. Let's see what happens. 
Also, don't be distracted by fancy bombs because this is all a distraction from the terrible things they are doing here. The budget bill, human rights violations, violations of constitution, corruption, trump coin, DODGE basically proving it was meaningless and just for musk to remove all investigations etc.

Traditional-Ad-3245

Hopefully they get one via china or north korea before israel violates the ceasefire and attacks again or performs an obvious false flag and claims iran violated it. Israels plan to destroy the greater middle east and destroy any other state's capacity in the area is pretty obvious.

help_abalone



Iran's nuclear program was zero before the strikes, and its zero after the strike. This has been lost in the news cycles but our own intelligence agencies have said Iran is years away from a bomb, only Israel's agencies have been saying they're close and there is incentive for them to drag US involvement. So until US agencies say the opposite, the chances remain at zero.

illegalmorality

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

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

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.



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.

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

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

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

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.*

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

European powers are reinstating UN sanctions against Iran due to concerns over its nuclear program and missile development.

Iran Sanctions and Nuclear Program

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want