Public sentiment regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions is deeply divided, with a significant portion supporting Iran against perceived biases from Western nations, especially towards Israel. However, there is also strong skepticism about Iran's true intentions, with many expressing distrust in the regime and fears of nuclear proliferation. Calls for diplomatic solutions coexist with concerns about escalating tensions and the potential for conflict.

Iran

Israel

United States

Russia

Please discuss politics in r/nuclearpolitics

ScrappyPunkGreg

I can't think of any way you or I could verify it, but [the Iranian foreign minister claims ](https://thehill.com/policy/international/5414085-iran-foreign-minister-nuclear-sites-destroyed/)they were destroyed and that Iran plans to rebuild them.

[US intel claims one of three sites](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/new-us-assessment-finds-american-strikes-destroyed-only-one-three-iran-rcna218761).

GogurtFiend

No, Fordow was [destroyed](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/new-us-assessment-finds-american-strikes-destroyed-only-one-three-iran-rcna218761), Natanz was also heavily damaged, and Isfahan's surface facilities were severely damaged. Isfahan's underground complex was mostly untouched, Kolang Gaz-La was not hit (likely storing some of the nuclear material there), along with numerous other critical facilities that were not hit, and there was speculation about the uranium being moved out of Fordow, but that seems unlikely and the trucks were likely dumping dirt to backfill the entrances. It was probably set back significantly, less than the US government claims (2 years) but more than much of the news and initial intel described (a few months). A lot of centrifuges were very damaged, but it's likely they'll be building new ones.

Iran, for their part, have had varying claims of either severe damage or no damage. It is likely they will be rebuilding the program soon enough, although current satellite imagery suggests only minimal repairs to those damaged facilities.

Afrogthatribbits2317

Still no credible evidence Iran was actively trying to make a nuke. All the US destroyed was a diplomatic bargaining chip. But they will definitely rebuild.

Significant_Goose_75

We won't know for sure until if or when Iran tests a nuclear device.

For years Iran used an open approach under the JCPOA collaborating with the IAEA to avoid being subject to sanctions from the West, Russia and China. They deliberately stayed a threshold power hoping that this would be sufficient to maintain deterrence. They were isolated from everyone and

Three things have changed: 
1. That deterrence failed when Iran was attacked by both Israel and the US. 
2. Now Europe has imposed the punitive "snap back sanctions" for violating the agreement. The US was already doing this.
3. Iran is no longer isolated with China and Russia declaring the snap back sanctions are illegal. Iran now has allies and friends among the BRICS and non-aligned countries who will not only trade with it but even defend it. It is less isolated than Israel and arguably the United States. 

The appropriate response is nuclear ambiguity, the same policy Israel has adopted for decades. 

To provide a pretext  for another attack, at some stage Israel &amp; the US may claim they've discovered Iran has resumed it's nuclear program. Israel and US intelligence services (and those of their allies) are no longer credible given their track record. 

Iran has the support it needs to continue a clandestine nuclear program should it choose to do so. Sadly another Israeli attack is almost inevitable regardless of genuine evidence.

Galerita

Pakistan was more secretive. They also began much earlier than Iran. Their first test was in 1983.

Dilettante

Pakistan was a close ally to the USA especially during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

typomasters

Pakistan started their program much much earlier and was far more secretive about. Pakistan was also a very close US ally at the time due to the US interference in Afghanistan. Pakistan also had much better scientists. The men who worked on the nuclear program were students of the big names in science like Einstein and Oppenheimer and one even went on to win the Muslim world's only Noble Prize in Physics. They were also far more determined. There is an infamous quote from PM Bhutto about how **it wouldn't matter if they ate grass or even starved, they would have a nuclear bomb.**

But most importantly they also collaborated ***heavily*** with China\*.\* Like an unprecedented amount. Pakistan, through its relationship with the US had access to a lot of Western nuclear tech, given freely, and Pakistan stole even more, which they then traded with China for Soviet tech given freely before the Sino-Soviet split and stolen after. **The degree of closeness and goodwill between Pakistan and China at this time in regards to the nuclear program cannot be understated**.

Any damage to Pakistan's program could have and would have been almost instantly repaired by China and vice versa not that there was anyone who could bomb the Chinese facilities except the USSR. There was no stopping it. Seriously. At one point Pakistan-India tensions were heating up and Pakistan had not yet acquired enough weapons grade fuel, ***so China loaned Pakistan enough weapons grade nuclear fuel for them to construct a bomb as goodwill***. They didn't even take it back when offered since Pakistan never ended up actually needing or using it. It was essentially a *free nuclear bomb*. It's been speculated that Pakistan's first test was actually at the Chinese test range in Lop Nur years before the first test in Pakistan itself (though this is likely not true).

***There was effectively no way to stop either Pakistan's or China's nuclear programs***. They had all the advantages, some of the worlds best scientists, little scrutiny from world powers, and access to both Soviet and Western nuclear tech. Any damage to either could be made up for by the other. North Korea's nuclear program was built directly by China and Pakistan too. This isn't even speculation but almost acknowledged fact.

**Finally, Israel did attempt to stop Pakistan's nuclear program.** Its been claimed that Israel had a plan to bomb Pakistan's facilities similar to Iraq which was bombed a few years prior. There were mockups in the Negev desert of Pakistan's facilities that the IAF practiced on. However, Israel did not have the range to actually bomb Pakistan from Israel itself, instead needing access to India's runways. Its claimed that India pulled out of the operation rather late in the stage because they were afraid that Pakistan was much further along than thought, meaning it could retaliate against India with nukes of its own, and the fact that India only would get all of the retribution. The Indian PM Indira Ghandi under whom most of the operation was planned was also later assassinated (unrelated to Pakistan) killing the operation permanently. Western German firms that covertly cooperated with Pakistan were also targeted with bombings and intimidation by allegedly the Mossad. **It is known for certain that Israeli planes were spying on Pakistan's facilities and even violated Pakistan's airspace days before the first 'hot' test in 1998 which led to a panic inside Pakistan where Pakistan met with the UN officials to make certain an attack wasn't imminent.**

WitELeoparD

The major reason is that, like India, South Africa, and Israel, Pakistan chose to not sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty than banned any nation that had not tested nuclear weapons before 1967 from developing them. This Treaty has never applied to these nations, so they continued with their nuclear programmes.

India and Pakistan were the most understandable as they had each other to worry, Both knew the other was working towards a nuclear programme, which meant both *had* to develop their own programme. So, both did.

GOT_Wyvern

well isn't there that one random dude named Bob or something that supposedly has 1?

or was that an old Internet tale?

CorneliusSoctifo

Iran was too slow off the mark basically.

The Iranian programme began in the 50s, but they hadn't achieved a functioning weapon before the Revolution, and the Iran-Iraq War knocked them off course. At about the same time the Treaty on Non-Proliferation was set up.

By the time they got going again in maybe the late 80s early 90s, they were a "rogue" state, the Soviet Union had collapsed, and the US-led West had no interest in turning a blind eye to a nuclear powered Iran. The programme has also repeatedly been set back by Israeli strikes.

BarNo3385

Pakistan and India got their nukes primarily to counter each other.


The US tolerated Pakistan because they offered a backdoor to negotiating directly with China. 

Ok-disaster2022

Because their main rival, India already had them, and India was somewhat friendly with the Soviet Union. It’s was to some degree an extension of the Cold War and nowadays is seen as an ongoing issue between those two countries.

AMD also Pakistan has generally had pretty good relations with the USA.

Monotask_Servitor

Pakistan developed nukes mostly during the Cold War. Their major push was during the Russia invasion of Afghanistan.

At the time, China, Pakistan, and the US were working hand-in-hand against the Soviet Union. China was supplying weapons to Pakistan and the Afghan Mujahideen; much of which was coordinated by the US and UK and paid for by the Gulf States. 

As part of the weapons transfers, China gave Pakistan a copy of their “export” nuke - essentially a modernized version of “Fat Man”. 

In 1990 the Pakistanis shot [tested] at Lop Nor, in China. 

By that time, the US was finished with the Cold War and had become more concerned with nuclear proliferation, so Pakistan’s first test actually led to sanctions.

Iran, on the other hand, developed nukes primarily during the post-Cold War era and did so mainly as protection against the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, China and Russia**.

**Yeah, the media doesn’t talk much about this, but look at map sometime. There is a negative 6 trillion percent chance that either Russia or China wants Iran to have nukes. They want to the US/EU/NATO/Israel to solve the problem, but they don’t want a nuclear Iran.

So, Iran was always going to get more pushback. Israel has long held that it’ll be the only nuclear state in the Middle East. In recent years, most Middle East countries have either reached accommodation with or straight up allied with Israel and the US, leaving Iran increasingly isolated.

Slytherian101

Iran needs a PR agent. Something about the “death to Israel” chant scared western society. Go figure…

easetheguy

Pakistan is a close ally of US and with India inclining towards the USSR during the 70s helped the cause.  Heck, they got away sheltering Laden.

Iran has publicly stated US as a enemy, so there goes it's chances of having a nuclear bomb.

pijd

Pakistan wasn't openly going around saying it would destroy other countries. Iran could have benefited from the "speak softly and carry a big stick" strategy - instead it did the opposite.

mjk1093

As others have said, they developed them earlier, but the biggest reason is they are a quasi-ally to the US. While that relationship has fluctuated they are a non-NATO ally. We are ok with our friends having bombs. Not ok with countries that don’t like us having them.

shthappens03250322

What do their dominant religions have to do with it? lol

Do you think only Christians are allowed to have nuclear weapons?

jackoirl

One reason is that Iran signed the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) while Pakistan did not. That is, Iran is violating a treaty that it agreed to earlier.

The countries that have nukes either got them before the NPT, never signed it, or (in the case of North Korea) withdrew from it.

Ridley_Himself

In the following order 👇


Pakistani spy A.Q. Khan got the blue prints from France.


USA overthrew the PM of Pakistan and got him hanged 


Russia invaded Afghanistan 


USA needed Pakistan to stop Russia


Pakistan twisted the CIA's arm, and blackmailed the USA n started building the program


Russia lost 


USA blew up the stock pile of missiles and weapons in Pakistan 


Pakistan kept building the nukes


USA blew up the plane carrying the top military brass of Pakistan, all top generals were murdered; along with the American ambassador.


USA installed a puppet PM in Pakistan.


Pakistanis still kept building the nukes 😂


USA kept destroying democracy in Pakistan, poisoned and murdered an army chief 


Pakistan still went on with the nukes


USA put heavy sanctions on Pakistan 


PAKISTAN finally got the nukes 


22 Arabs destroy the world trade center, USA needs Pakistan again 😂🤗

Eddysluniverse

Pakistan is not a signatory to the NPT and not subject to inspections by the IAEA. The only reason Iran cannot develop nukes is that they still are a signatory to the NPT. Iran could withdraw from the treaty if they want nukes. 

Colodanman357

Its primary enemy is India; no one else is primary.

DanishTango

Read "Eating Grass" by Brigadier General Feroz Hassan Khan, he is retired pak army officer and strategic studies professor/researcher at the Naval War College in USA. It was a combination of smart scientists, a rare civil military consensus, Pakistan's strategic importance during the last decade of the soviet union, good statecraft (relations with both us and china) and finally having the perfect reason/excuse to do so, i.e. India. Although pakistan was hit with the presller amendment/sanctions and were refused delivery of f-16s in the 90s that they had paid for, it was a matter of time before India tested its nukes and it was fair game for Pakistan to do so shortly after.

alphatauri123

Best timing and a little bit of luck. Pakistan started it's nuclear program when USA was busy in cold war and later in Soviet Invansion of Afghanistan. Pakistan was a strong US qally at that time because it trained Mujahedeen to fight Soviet. 

Pakistan also kept it secretive while we know Iran's nuclear program is very thing except a secret.

IkramAli007

The Americans supported Pakistan and wanted to use them to keep India in check at a certain point in time. 

[deleted]

Decades before Afghanistan fiasco, it was India that USA was concerned with. Nehru's Non-Aligned movement was a great concern for USA. To counter that, they doled out pretty much everything Pakistan demanded.

SensibleIndian_

Oh my dear sweet summer child...it's not about Nukes.

DrLeonardBonesMcCoy

What is them being islamic got to do with anything?

hishie

They're both islamic but pakistan isn't going around claiming and actually trying to destroy the western world. Pakistan was also an ally of the US and that helped them make the bomb because the CIA allowed their Nuclear scientist to take the Uranium from the Netherlands to Pakistan for the Nuclear program rather than getting arrested as the Dutch wanted to.

Israel actually wanted to destroy Pakistan's Nuclear facilities but they weren't given the opportunity to attack. This would've definitely resulted in Pakistan and Israel being firm enemies. Today the to Work  together on some missions in Turkey

1AboveEverything

Pakistan largely took a back seat to the building of their nuclear arsenal. They received extensive help from China, both in terms of uranium enrichment provisions and the blueprints for how to build these weapons quickly and secretly. China's desire to help Pakistan achieve this goal largely came from both its friendly relationships to Pakistan and from its distrust of India, a regional rival to both nations.

topatjones

Pakistans leaders weren’t running around threatening to use them as soon as they were ready.

Bitter_Emphasis_2683

pak made the weapons first.

Iran threatened to destroy Israel once it had nuclear  weapons. ever since then, Israel continuously attacked and sabotaged their progress

thebigbadwolf22

Pakistan was an ally of the USA. 


Iran wasn't an ally of the USA.
(They were an ally during the rule of the monarchy but after the revolution, the USA was now against Iran and not an ally)

D_P_R_8055

Femboyunionist

Read about the father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb AQ Khan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

There’s also a good book about this called “Shopping for Bombs”

https://www.amazon.com/Shopping-Bombs-Proliferation-Insecurity-Q/dp/0195375238

xbhaskarx

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/060198pakistan-nuke-history.html

NYTimes had an article on how how China and US gave nuclear bomb to Pakistan 

U.S. And China Helped Pakistan Build Its Bomb
By TIM WEINER

WASHINGTON -- Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a future prime minister of Pakistan, declared in 1965, "If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves -- even go hungry -- but we will get one of our own."

It required more than three decades, a global network of theft and espionage, and uncounted millions for Pakistan, one of the world's poorest countries, to explode that bomb. But it could not have happened without smuggled Chinese technology and contradictory shifts in U.S. policy, according to present and former U.S. officials.

China, a staunch ally of Pakistan's, provided blueprints for the bomb, as well as highly enriched uranium, tritium, scientists and key components for a nuclear weapons production complex, among other crucial tools. Without China's help, Pakistan's bomb would not exist, said Gary Milhollin, a leading expert on the spread of nuclear weapons.

Dilbertreloaded

Abdul Qadeer Khan is the reason.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

layland_lyle

One played nice with the US the other overthrew the CIA appointed head of state.

bindermichi

PuckFigs

Pakistan was allied to the US, especially after the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets in 1979. Moreover, their fiercest rival India got them in 1974. India was officially non-aligned, but was closer to the USSR. The US had no reasons to oppose Pakistan from getting it.

Indian_Pale_Ale

They played nice and were needed as a consistent rival to India, iran regularly goes to war and consistantly changed who its enemies are.

Reasonable_Long_1079

Not posing a threat to US and it's allies. India got away with the same 'rule'.  Even during this conflict Pak clearly mentioned that their nuke is for their safety only.

AntiqueEquipment6973

If they've honestly had the ability since 1995, like Bibi and every talking head on TV has claimed, then it's more likely they have chosen not to build one, rather than anyone has been 'stopping' them. Plus, Pakistan was definitely given assistance in order to counter India, which allies with Russia every now and then.

Spaceboy779

Because they are two different countries. India and many other countries 'got away' too. What's your question, exactly?

gottistotwot

We don't even know if Iran actually wanted to build one...

GM-Tuub

Not sure if this is the absolute right answer but Pakistan (although there may be some tension at the moment) has been an ally of the US dating back to Pakistan being established in the ‘40’s-‘50’s but especially during the years following 9/11. Also, several years ago I was bored and started googling my last name for some reason and saw Pakistan had a short range missile coincidentally bearing my last name. All of their weapons seem to be short range…likely with India in mind as the suggested target.

StrongRecord7534

Pakistan was helped by the US because India was under the USSRs control during the Cold War. Same reason Pakistan flys F16s and Indian Migs.

Testysing

It's likely a gross miscalculation with some religion in the mix given their decree. They could be dry testing implosion designs from the late 90s having a very reliable package tested for icbm delivery in extreme conditions, then they just quickly bring the 60% into 95% , chemically seperate it , cast it into a core and install it on their device waiting in the missile. Esentially, turning a conventional weapon into a nuclear one. I really dont know , what they did or rather did not do , it makes absolutely 0 sense to me. There really is no way to know if they have stashed a 100 kilos of HEU somewhere. That's why I reflexively squitn at my screen every time I see online those missile barrages raining on Izrael , expecting one falling star to not be conventional. An implosion design for a country with a complete fuel cycle and centrifuges is really not a great feat. It's a matter of some testing and money.

I don't understand is why in a more general sense the focus is always on countries like iran developing their own when they could potentially be getting them from russias stockpile in trade for the drones.

TaylorR137

No plutonium, right? That would limit an Iranian weapon in specific ways. 
But they can produce tritium, is that correct?

Rain_on_a_tin-roof

&gt;"How can they continue to be 'just a few steps away' from a workable device for as long as I can remember?"

I think the answer is very simple - they never wanted to make a bomb. 

Their nuclear program was meant to be used as a scarecrow against Israel, while also serving as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the US that they knew were inevitably going to happen. In a way, same thing as what North Korea does.  
  
But I think they overplayed their hand trying to squeeze as many concessions as possible to the point that one of 2 things happened:   
Either  
a) Israel backstabbed the US and launched the strikes to torpedo the negotiations and prevent any possibility of a peaceful resolution (if I recall, one version of the proposal talked about Iran retaining a limited enrichment capacity)  
or  
b) Iran made the worst mistake: they trusted that the US was negotiating in good faith, while it was just a pretense to lull them into a false sense of security before the hammer fell.

DefinitelyNotMeee

Not exactly a layman here, but out of the game and not privy to non-open source intelligence. 

But one thing I think we need to acknowledge and consider is that despite what we think of Netanyahu’s motivations, it’s pretty clear that Israel has Iran (and by definition its nuclear program) penetrated to an absolutely unbelievable level. 

They managed to assassinate several high ranking members of the Iranian nuclear program, as well as the IRGC and the Iranian military. 

You don’t easily come across the intel of their current whereabouts, especially after earlier successful assassination attempts. 

With that level of penetration they probably also had access to serious intel about Iran’s capabilities and intentions. 

They probably had the intel the IAEA released this week WAY before the IAEA, and were prepared to act as soon as the report was released. 

If I were a member of the Iranian government, I would act on the assumption that Israel knows everything, and act accordingly. 

Iran has done a pretty good job of building some survivable assets that may allow them to break out sooner rather than later. And the strikes they made could be cover for the killing of the scientists that would actually design and build their weapons. 

Israel may not be able to get to the enrichment and fabrication factories because they are under mountains, but if there’s no one around to actually BUILD the weapons, that may be good enough.

Whatever21703

With the recent pledge of NK to help Iran militarily and seeing as how NK wants as many friends as possible, getting a working nuke is probably a lot easier for Iran now. One thing that NK had to work on though was the ballistics and getting a working package to target, which Iran just demonstrated it has a handle on. It seems like they may complement each other.

These are f'n stupid times

Commercial-Kiwi9690

I just realized that there is one possibility everyone is forgetting about - the most primitive and inefficient gun design. In the end, nuke is a nuke.

Could Iran use their 60% enriched uranium to make a simple gun design warhead that might fit into their larger ballistic missile?

I (obviously) can't calculate how much would be needed to make it work and what the possible yield could be.

&gt;Is it political?

[Nuclear Claims Are a Smoke Screen for Hopes of Toppling Iran](https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/06/13/israel-iran-strikes-regime-change-nuclear-claims/?utm_content=gifting&amp;tpcc=gifting_article&amp;gifting_article=aXNyYWVsLWlyYW4tc3RyaWtlcy1yZWdpbWUtY2hhbmdlLW51Y2xlYXItY2xhaW1z&amp;pid=PNI6oXabXq1ydw6)

☝ Makes a good case that the war is about regime change in Iran, not its nuclear program.

window-sil

&gt;How can they continue to be 'just a few steps away' from a workable device for as long as I can remember?

One theory is that Iran believes it has been more useful to have the *threat* of developing nuclear weapons than to have the weapons themselves.

When most countries develop nuclear weapons, they do it very secretly.  Then, one day they detonate one, and announce to the world that they are a nuclear-armed state, and it is too late to do anything about it.  Iran has done the opposite: they publicly announce that they have gotten slightly closer to the capability of developing a weapon.  Then some time goes by, and they announce that they have gotten incrementally closer to possessing a weapon, or that they could if they wanted to, or they plan to take another incremental step soon... and so on, and so on.

Why would they make such provocative public announcements, especially when they have induced other nations to [sabotage their nuclear program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet) in the past?  One interpretation is that they make these announcements in order to try to bring nations (such as the United States) to the negotiating table.  They would like other nations to reduce the existing sanctions against Iran, and to release [frozen Iranian assets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_frozen_assets).  It's a dangerous game to play, but they've been close to a [deal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action) in the past.

Iran's economy is not strong, and announcing that they have nuclear weapons (much less using them), could lead to even more severe sanctions against Iran - exactly the opposite of what many experts think they hope to achieve.  I doubt many nations would be happy to hear that Iran has nuclear weapons, and using one might very well do more to unite nations against them than to make them more secure.

An argument people often make is that North Korea developed nuclear weapons and they haven't been invaded.  That's true, but they were not in imminent danger of invasion before they acquired nuclear weapons, and they remain a very poor and isolated nation.

echawkes

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-found-iran-carried-out-key-tests-for-nuke-design-ahead-of-strikes-report/

elcolonel666

A helpful reality check to people supposing Israeli omnipotence in being able to interfere in Iran's potential WMD efforts.

Despite Israel's best efforts Iran now has around 400 kg of 60% HEU, enough to build 10 warheads once topped off to 90%, and is producing it a rate of about 400 kg a year now.

And Iran has accurate ballistic missilea that can hit Israel at will now.

Israel has been unable to prevent this.

careysub

Interesting update about the damage to Iranian nuclear facilities [https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iaea-chief-says-no-further-damage-iranian-enrichment-facilities-2025-06-16/](https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iaea-chief-says-no-further-damage-iranian-enrichment-facilities-2025-06-16/)

Esfahan:   
\- The central chemical laboratory damaged  
\- Uranium conversion plant damaged  
\- Reactor fuel manufacturing plant damaged  
\- UF4 to EU metal processing facility damaged

Natanz:  
\- No damage to the underground enrichment plant   
\- Power supply was destroyed  
\- Above-ground part of the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant destroyed

Fordow:  
\- No damage 

  
This is very, very surprising. 

Since Israel went after nuclear scientists first and dealt only light damage to the actual enrichment facilities, it could mean:  
\- It was a warning, the "stick", to make Iran agree to the deal with the US. Essentially, "or else ..".   
\- They went after scientists because they don't have the means to destroy the enrichment plants; they need American B-2s for that

More updates: 

\- Arak reactor struck  
\- Claims about hits to the underground portion of the Natanz enrichment plant

[https://www.msn.com/en-gb/politics/government/israel-says-it-targeted-nuclear-sites-in-iran-s-natanz-and-arak-overnight/ar-AA1H0Nvi](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/politics/government/israel-says-it-targeted-nuclear-sites-in-iran-s-natanz-and-arak-overnight/ar-AA1H0Nvi)

We should work to have less not more countries with nuclear weapons. If Iran has then the saudis and others will want to have one too. It never ends and if you can't stop one the same logic will apply to everyone. Before you know it everyone will have nuclear weapons.

EdliA

Deterrent against what? An outright massive invasion? 


Because as a deterrent against anything smaller, nuclear weapons are essentially useless. And even a total invasion can well happen to you. When Egypt and Syria almost defeated Israel in 1973, they were very well aware that Israel has nukes and may use them as a last resort and they did it anyway.


When Iranian regime tells you that they want to wipe Israel of the map, it is quite likely that they are serious about it. It's not like they haven't, at a massive cost to them, tried that in the past quite a few times. 

Downtown-Act-590

I would not have expected Mohammed (edit: Yahya. not Mohammed) Sinwar to lead Hamas on a delusional, murderous suicide spree that had no objective chance of success. I would not have predicted Putin drinking his own Kool-Aid and actually destroy millions of lives to try and resurrect a zombie Soviet Union in Ukraine. 

Rational arguments are all fine and dandy but in true authocracies there's a non-zero chance Dear Leader becomes disconnected from reality and actually does something monumentally stupid. Xi Jinping may yet invade Taiwan. 

I would still consider the chance of a nuclear first use by Iran as unlikely but not highly unlikely or impossible. I've seen two impossibilities happen just since 2022.

curiouslyjake

You are overestimating the degree to which states are rational actors. Looking back to history, anyone can name a dozen dictators who were clearly irrational, and self destructive, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Francisco Solano Lopez. Highly ideological, self destructive dictators are not historically unprecedented, or even uncommon. Martyrdom is a real motive for people. One Iran works to foster in its populace. And while you could argue the supreme leader hasn’t drank the coolaid, what about his subordinate?

Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho

For a moment, pretend that you lived a small community of about 200 houses. Some of the houses were bigger than others, some were very small. Some were wealthy, some were poor. Your house was decently sized, you had a fair amount of wealth, but the houses around you absolutely hated you. They'd put signs in their front yard that they wanted to see your house burned to the ground. That your house was a blight on the world and a curse. 

Now, you had some pretty good weapons in your house. You had a fence lined with defense systems that the houses who hated you couldn't cross. You heard that one of the houses that really hates you was working on a bomb that could wipe out your house. 

Would you try to stop them?

WanderingSpearIt

Iran has been known to work with terrorist organizations. Iran might not use them but can you guarantee that they won't share the technology with someone who will?

smlwng

I think the proof of this is that they haven't used chemical weapons or a dirty bomb. They easily could. 

asbestosdemand

Nuclear weapons have always been considered a last resort, that's why stating that 'they serve more as deterrents thanactual live munition' is meaningless in this context. But that doesn't mean it's almost impossible they’d be used first in a conflict. That’s a huge leap.

Also, your reasoning for such claim are very weak.

A. You're oversimplyfing two entirely different geopolitical conflicts. Pakistan and India have onstanding tensions, but Pakistan has never vowed to annihilate India. Iran, on the other hand, has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, including from its top leadership. That kind of ideological framing matters. Even if Pakistan had made such statements, the idea of destroying India with nukes is absurd due to its size. That isn't the case with Israel, a much smaller and more vulnerable country, makinga nuclear first strike more plausible.

B. Them having the ability to 'terrorize" cities in Israel yet choosing to engage only after being struck first doesn't actually prove much. Iran's goal isn't to just terrorize or knock down a few buildings in Israeli cities, it's to eventually eliminate the state of Israel entirely. The fact that they respond rather than initiate only reflect strategic timing, not some kind of moral boundary. And when they did strike, the strikes were largely ineffective. Ballistic missles have a relatively low chance of hitting their targets accurately, just to note, Haif was hit only twice, and Ashkelon wasn't hit at all.

So yes, nukes would mostly serve as deterrents, like in most nuclear states, but claiming it’s 'almost impossible' for Iran to use them first completely ignores the ideological, strategic, and regional realities that make this case very different.

IllustratorSlow5284

MAD does not work, both sides have bombed each other conventionally Iran using missiles that are nuclear capable. There is no way to tell if an Iranian missile strike will be conventional or a nuclear attack to take out Israeli nuclear weapons, this was a nightmare scenario in the Cold War and why there is a very strong pressure not to arm ICBMs with conventional warheads for things like Global Prompt Strike, like FOBS and deorbiting orbital weapons its hugely destabilising to be able to make a nuclear first strike indistinguishable from a low key conventional exchange.

Pakistan and India are fighting over who runs a small scrap of land on the border, it's not existential their exchanges are mostly down to that and revenge for support of terrorism. There instability tends to be too small potatoes to be a major escalation risk. 

DPRK does not exchange missiles with the ROK, it has regime survival as a possible outcome but this is not an immediate issue. So the escalation risk is real but would involve long term regime collapse. 

Russia tends to be too involved in the global economy to go nuclear over anything other than full blown national collapse. 

Iran believes in a form of Islam that venerates martyrdom, see control of "al Quds" as a religious obligation and has an end of times eschatology that is more like Rapture Ready far right Christians than mainstream Christians or Muslims.

It would be a deeply deeply unstable situation as you have the potential to not be able to identify an incoming nuclear attack by the extremists in power worshiping martyrdom and hoping for the end of the world to bring about paradise. They are about as stable with a bomb as the Jerry Falwell's of this world.

IndividualSkill3432

The first Iranian ballistic strike didn't happen when they were "struck first". It happened after Israel killed Haniyeh on Iranian soil - which came after a long list of escalation in the conflict between Israel and Iran... 

Just saying - Iran is the one that opened the conflict with Israel. i.e. without developing nuclear weapons and \*outright saying\* that those would be used to destroy Israel, while spending huge amounts of money and aid to proxy groups that attack Israel - Israel wouldn't care about Iran. This means that the theory of developing a weapon as deterrence doesn't really make sense. Their goal is to destroy Israel, otherwise they wouldn't have entered a conflict against it. Given this, and given the fact that they openly said they would use that weapon, IDK why are you so confident that they won't.

comeon456

Take the example of the Russian nuclear threat since the Ukraine war began. NATO could have responded more forcefully to Russian aggression but the nuclear element has in many ways slowed down their response. Nuclear weapons make the costs of escalation unacceptably high so other nations who would intervene on one side or the other have to think twice. If Iran has nukes pointed at European cities that may keep NATO/US from intervening on Israel's behalf when they launch a full scale attack.

crocodile0117

This is true for almost any country.  Long gone are the days that nukes are used in an offensive capacity. 

Their biggest value is a threat. Look at Russia if it were not for their nukes and threatening to use them all the time and everyone being so scared of World war III and nuclear Holocaust the world would have put troops into Ukraine already to stop Russia. 

But Russia is not going to use them. They just use them as leverage to be allowed to do what they want

MaineHippo83

Of course they wouldn't use them that's the main goal of nukes is when you get them you never use them because everyone else will use their nukes on you. 

The world would be a vastly safer place if more nations had nukes. Or if none did and nations were dealing with losing mass amounts of men.

handsfullofaids

They have a clock in Teheran counting down the time to the destruction of Israel. Case closed.

Fabulous-Suspect-72

I'm sure glad we didn't wait to find out.

kinrove1386

I believe what you’re saying. It would just stop what happened a couple days ago and what Isreal did. If anything it stops conflict in the Middle East.

newaccount252

This dude looks like he's been 70 for like 20 years

Xytonn

guitarguywh89

Ah the old "I'm going to die in prison if I don't keep the public eye pointed elsewhere" gamble.  A classic!

OutrageousTime4868

ArnieismyDMname

This video should have started with 1995 and went forward.

freshcoastghost

I mean they do have confirmed nuclear facilities that were confirmed to be enriching uranium.

Beneficial_Dark7362

This is so stupid.

Have you heard of Stuxnet?

I swear Reddit (not to mention TikTok and most/all other social media) are just mostly state sponsored propaganda now.

Too bad it has been so effective in directing the beliefs of Americans, especially young ones.  Gullible.

NarrowSalvo

reminds me of the tesla self driving. always a version away.

hfidek

And Israel was weeks away in 1962, when JFK ordered them not to pursue a nuclear programme. Now they have a huge arsenal of undeclared nukes, and are rogue state bound by no treaties. They have killed, imprisoned, stolen land from, and dehumanised an indigenous population for 100 years, and they put vast amounts of money into ensuring American and European politicians do their bidding.

willflameboy

https://preview.redd.it/yjy1d7rh5l7f1.jpeg?width=800&amp;format=pjpg&amp;auto=webp&amp;s=92b099b3f7ca284cd6c576822531f2c6c8fc11d6

northbk5

Sounds to me like the sanctions are having their intended effect

Italiancrazybread1

Why does Iran need uranium with over 50% enrichment?

Moopboop207

Oh look it's mr. Positive reverberation trying to peddle his bullshit to the US again to fight his war. Seriously just stfu and let people live in peace.

Phantommuchen

Many operations have slowed Iran’s progress. Operations like Stuxnet and others have stunted Iran’s nuclear program. 

This video is a testament to the hard work of thousands of people in the international intelligence community to stop Iran. Without their efforts Iran would have had nuclear weapons a long time ago. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

TheDuckFarm

Look, I don’t support Israel for their war crimes and such… but Iran HAS been trying to develop nuclear weapons throughout the years, and it was intervention that got them to stop. Just because Iran never used it, doesn’t mean they haven’t been actively trying for the last 3 decades. It was US and Israeli military intervention that put it at bay.

CosmosOfTime

Iran's leadership reaffirmed their stance against pursuing nuclear weapons while facing potential sanctions related to their nuclear activities.

Iran Nuclear Weapons Controversy

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want