Public sentiment is deeply divided on Iran's nuclear ambitions, with a notable proportion supporting Iran's right to pursue nuclear capabilities in defiance of Western sanctions, viewing these as hypocritical. Conversely, there is also significant skepticism and criticism of the Iranian government's intentions, particularly in light of perceived aggression from Israel and the US. This duality reflects a broader narrative of distrust in international diplomacy and feelings of justified resistance against perceived imperialism.

Iran

United States

Israel

United Nations

My understanding is it’s near impossible for a country to develop nuclear capability undetected - and it will continue to be even more difficult as time progresses. 

Is any country without nuclear weapons essentially forever barred from becoming a world power in the future?

SubstantialBass9524

What do you think of Israel's actual nuclear arsenal and refusal to declare its nukes? Contrary to Iran having the most IAEA visits, Israel is the only country in West Asia with no IAEA visits at all. 

Do you think there are double standards somewhere?

NOOBFUNK

As a nonproliferation expert, do you think that 
a) given the current geo political instabilities, an arms race will re-start with more countries wanting nuclear weapons for self defence? Will non-proliferation work?
b) we will see a WW3 with a nuclear apocalypse like scenario? 

I apologise if these are silly but need a little reassurance from an expert :)

RigaTriesThis

What do you think of the bombing of Iran's nuclear sites during the talks?


What are your thoughts on Israel's compliance to IAEA?

EmployAltruistic647

How effective was it in your opinion to bomb nuclear sites in Iran a few months ago and how will this event shape future negotiations under this or the next administration?

Also, thanks for doing the AMA! 🙂

Mysterious-Outcome37

What’s the most surprising thing about working in the White House?

Otherwise-Till-2077

How do you respond to criticisms that the Iran deal should have included restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program and proxy support? Do you think Iran would ever agree to a wider deal like that if this admin were to pursue negotiations again?

Conscious-Seaweed-42

Also, a lot of countries cry hypocrisy given that Iran has one of the most IAEA visits and despite the IAEA still saying they don't have WMDs notwithstanding their enrichment, people seem to think Iran has nukes and war is justified. How do you think about the US directly going into Iran during the recent war? Is it a violation of international law or not?

A lot of critics suggest that America leaving the JCPOA with Iran was a big blunder. Do you think it was wise to withdraw?

Sugar_Vivid

what are your thoughts on nukes as deterrents? most major nations have them already

SynthesizedTime

Hello there, thanks for doing this AMA!

There's plenty of talk about nuclear weapons programs when it comes to nuclear proliferation - but what about dirty bombs? They don't carry the prestige or capabilities of fission bombs, but they are still of concern, particularly with non-state actors.

Are there any present concerns about them in the MENA region? How are they being addressed? Perhaps a bit outside of the scope, but given the push for smaller nuclear reactors, are there safeguards in place/in development for their protection re: non-state actors?

Oh! A bit out of left field - I heard several years ago (early 2000s) about a Russian millionaire/mob boss that had acquired a live nuclear warhead during/shortly after the fall of the USSR. Is there any credence to that story, or is it just another post-Soviet rumor? Have you heard of other similar events?

Blaskowicz

How has game theory influenced your approach to international negotiations, such as in the Iran Nuclear Deal?

charismaticeggman

Based on the events of the last twenty years or so, do you think that nonproliferation is actually achievable in the current world order?

thecastellan1115

Not strictly Iran-related but more general: With North Korea being largely safe just by mentioning their nuclear capability on one end and Ukraine having been invaded largely because they don't have nuclear weapons anymore, there seems to be a push towards nuclear armament.  How do you think will this affect nuclear proliferation in the near future? Will signatories of the NPT pull out en masse?

JimLongbow

The Russian economy is in pretty dire straits. If they lose the Ukraine war, Putin will lose power (after a short flight out of a window). What do you think will happen to Russia after that and in particular its nukes? What shape do you think those nukes are actually in right now?

Thanks.

PabloX68

What do you think about [Nuclear Update](https://nuclearupdate.com/subscribe), the pro-nuclear newsletter?

bengtoskar

Does Iran actively tries to get a nuclear weapon, and are they sincere with cooperating with international countries in that aspect?


And fell free to ignore this one, someone said that Iran is a country of moderate people leaded by fanatics.


Do you agree with it?


Thank you very much.

Admirable-Crazy-3457

Do you think it’s possible to see a direct conflict (non proxy) hot war between two nuclear powers?

Lithium-eleon

A country who breaks all the rules, doesn’t cooperate, and routinely calls for the destruction of western nations can be dealt with rationally?

smakusdod


Table of Questions and Answers. Original answer linked - Please upvote the original questions and answers. (I'm a bot.)
***

Question | Answer | Link
---------|----------|----------|
What do you think of the bombing of Iran's nuclear sites during the talks?   What are your thoughts on Israel's compliance to IAEA?|I think that it would have been better all round if Israel had waited to see what the diplomatic process would bring. I know that Israel had concerns about Iran’s potential to move quickly to nuclear weapons, but the Administration was about to hold another round and it is possible that a deal could have been found.  It’s a lot harder to get deals after bombs have been dropped.  I think Israel’s decision suggests that they didn’t have much confidence as to what kind of deal would come out of that process, which is also troubling for a whole bunch of reasons. As for Israel and the IAEA, Israel never signed the NPT.  Just like India and Pakistan, it therefore does not have a legal obligation to allow IAEA inspections throughout the country.|[Here](/r/AMA/comments/1nvftgt/im_a_nuclear_nonproliferation_expert_and_diplomat/nh8bzkz/)
My understanding is it’s near impossible for a country to develop nuclear capability undetected - and it will continue to be even more difficult as time progresses.  Is any country without nuclear weapons essentially forever barred from becoming a world power in the future?|Well, I don’t know.  Iraq got pretty close before the first Gulf War.  India and Pakistan were able to produce nuclear weapons.  I guess you could say that they were detected but they weren’t stopped.  Iran may be able to do so still.  If Libya hadn’t been such a small program and dysfunctional mess, they probably could have made a lot more progress.  A lot of other countries played with the technology in the 60s and 70s…I think the real issue is that since the NPT negotiated in 1968, you basically have removed a lot of the security concerns that countries would have that might make them want nuclear weapons.  But, if those security concerns come back, would countries be willing to risk it?  Because while it is probably true that detecting nuclear proliferation is easier now, its also probably true that advances in the science make working towards nuclear weapons easier too…  As for barred from being a world power, I don’t really think so.  I mean, there are lots of countries without nuclear weapons that are “world powers,” if you count that in political or economic terms.  Canada isn’t.  Germany isn’t.  UAE isn’t.  Japan isn’t.  Yes, they all probably could be if they wanted to, but that’s not the same thing.|[Here](/r/AMA/comments/1nvftgt/im_a_nuclear_nonproliferation_expert_and_diplomat/nh8fx5u/)
What do you think of Israel's actual nuclear arsenal and refusal to declare its nukes? Contrary to Iran having the most IAEA visits, Israel is the only country in West Asia with no IAEA visits at all.  Do you think there are double standards somewhere?|Look, people don’t like this answer but it is true: Iran signed the NPT and got the benefits of being an NPT state, but made the sacrifice of accepting IAEA inspections and the requirement not to build nuclear weapons.  Iran had a choice, it made it, and there is an obligation to hold it to its responsibilities.  That’s what every other country who signed the NPT asks of the rest of us: that all NPT non-nuclear weapon states be held to their obligations.  Because that’s how they have their own security, that’s why they agreed to join the NPT too.  Israel did not sign the NPT and is under no such obligation.  Now, you may not like that Israel hasn’t signed the NPT but that is a different issue.  If you want the Israelis to accept the NPT and IAEA safeguards, you need to convince them that it is in their national interest to do so.|[Here](/r/AMA/comments/1nvftgt/im_a_nuclear_nonproliferation_expert_and_diplomat/nh8jdac/)
How effective was it in your opinion to bomb nuclear sites in Iran a few months ago and how will this event shape future negotiations under this or the next administration?  Also, thanks for doing the AMA! 🙂|I think it was probably very effective in terms of damaging the “big” nuclear program.  Iran really would have a hard time extracting uranium from the dirt its mined from, turning it into usable material for producing weapons, and that sort of thing.  A lot of those facilities were destroyed and that’s a loss of material, time, energy, money that you can’t rebuild quickly.  I have many more questions about whether it was effective in preventing Iran from producing nuclear weapons.  Iran still has at least a few bombs worth of highly enriched uranium in the country and it is probably in places that it would be very hard to attack.  Iran probably has the ability to turn that material into bomb parts and then either test a device or field a crude weapon.  Probably not something they can mount on a missile quickly, but a bomb nonetheless.  I can’t prove it but that’s kind of my point: you also can’t prove that Iran can’t and that’s because inspectors are out.  The Israelis say they can spot it and maybe they can!  But, they can’t guarantee it and neither can anyone else.  That’s a real risk.  As for future talks, I think it probably makes them harder on net.  Look, it is possible that the Iranians can make a deal more easily since we’re not asking them to dismantle their facilities …that’s the best argument I’ve seen.  But, they’ve also, you know, been attacked and they really don’t trust the United States, the Europeans, the Russians or anyone else.  That makes me really nervous as to their intentions.|[Here](/r/AMA/comments/1nvftgt/im_a_nuclear_nonproliferation_expert_and_diplomat/nh8etms/)
Are nukes bad?|Nukes are bad, mkay.|[Here](/r/AMA/comments/1nvftgt/im_a_nuclear_nonproliferation_expert_and_diplomat/nh8hmfs/)
A lot of critics suggest that America leaving the JCPOA with Iran was a big blunder. Do you think it was wise to withdraw?|No, it was a disaster.  And we see that now.  Look, the JCPOA may not have been perfect, but if we’d implemented it, we’d have a lot more time to deal with the problem and with the ability to tell everyone that we fulfilled the deal, that it was the Iranians who were the ones causing problems, etc.  Don’t forget: Iran started to break out of the constraints in 2019.  So, that’s six years ago.  If you do that math, we’d face maybe the same Iranian nuclear program today after the JCPOA was over in say 2036.  That’s a long time from now.  Think about what we might have done with the years from 2019-2036 to address our concerns with Iran on the whole.  Yes, Iran would have had the benefits of sanctions relief and it could have done crazy things like arm the Houthis and Hezbollah with missiles…oh wait, it did that anyway.  OK, there would be more…maybe?  Maybe not?  Because maybe the Iran we’d be dealing with then would be a different place.  And if you say, “that’s a lot of maybes” – that’s right!  But there are also a lot of maybes in the conclusion that Iran would absolutely be pursuing nuclear weapons in 2030.  That’s an assumption, not a fact.  It’s a theory, a hypothesis.  And I’m willing to say I would have rather been facing that problem in five years time – at worst! – than what we have today.|[Here](/r/AMA/comments/1nvftgt/im_a_nuclear_nonproliferation_expert_and_diplomat/nh8j49l/)
How do you respond to criticisms that the Iran deal should have included restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program and proxy support? Do you think Iran would ever agree to a wider deal like that if this admin were to pursue negotiations again?|I think the criticism is fair as a strategic matter, but look, we did try.  Its not like we didn’t raise the missile issue.  There was a serious attempt to include them in the JCPOA.  And the regional issues came up in discussions.  Iran made abundantly clear it would not accept any deal that involved missiles or the region.  And, in fact, other countries in the region objected to any regional deal that didn’t include them.  So, there was a clear sense that it would be impossible to get those issues in.  And the other members of the negotiating group (the Russians, UK, French, Germans, Chinese, and EU) agreed that we shouldn’t tackle those issues.  Soooooo, even if I wanted it, there just wasn’t a chance.  Now, I thought in 2015 and I think now that the right choice would be to negotiate a further deal afterwards that dealt with missiles and the region, perhaps involving other negotiators.  I published a lot of papers and reports, including through the Brookings Institution with Bob Einhorn, arguing for that.  The current Administration chose a different approach.|[Here](/r/AMA/comments/1nvftgt/im_a_nuclear_nonproliferation_expert_and_diplomat/nh8jhxa/)
What do you think about [Nuclear Update](https://nuclearupdate.com/subscribe), the pro-nuclear newsletter?|Can’t say I follow it.|[Here](/r/AMA/comments/1nvftgt/im_a_nuclear_nonproliferation_expert_and_diplomat/nh8n8em/)

---
[Source](https://github.com/johnsliao/ama_compiler)

ama_compiler_bot

Can you understand countries‘ reluctance to give up their nuclear weapons after seeing what happened to Ukraine after they gave up theirs?

leberkaesweckle42

Poland and Germany are often mentioned as potential new nuclear weapons states. In the case of Germany this is because its objectively perceived interests may drive it that way, but it’ll take some doing to convince the German people. In Poland things may be very different, however. What are your thoughts on this?

ahnotme

Was it a good idea to bomb their Natanz nuclear site?

Agitated_Macaron9054

Let's reverse positions, you are now the "Leader" of Iran, what would you do?

Unknown-U

Have you ever read the 100th Monkey?   I’m assuming yes…thoughts?

xchrisrionx

[deleted]

Can any country build nuclear weapons in complete secrecy?

Africaspaceman

Don't have a question but thank you for all you do!

210sankey

How did you react to the Semaphor reports about the connection between US Negotiator Richard Malley and the Iranian government backed Iran Experts Initiative? Do you think it was blown out of proportion/an attempt at track two diplomacy, or do you think it weakened the US’s negotiating position?

JakobtheRich

What do you think of Kenneth Waltz's Neorealist thesis in regards to the Middle East? Would a nuclear-armed Iran as a counterweight to a Nuclear-armed Israel serve to balance the region through a bipolar system?

A_devout_monarchist

In your opinion why no one is talking about Isreal nuclear program and why it is not under control and investigation just like the Iranian? 

Have IAFA ever discussed this matter and (concerns if any) in public?

Salt-Island75

What would you reply to the argument “FDR asked no one’s permission, neither did Stalin, why should modern leaders not have it, would the world not be safer?”

Mediocre-Ebb9862

How could US be wrong about Iraq having WMD in 2000s?


Was there a shadow of possibility? Or were they purposefully lying so they could start a war?

KeyApplication221

Do you think that people who convinced Ukraine to give up nukes bear some responsibility for what’s happening now?

If you had the opportunity to make JCPOA 2.0 what would it include that JCPOA didn't.

Forward_Tie_5841

Is it in fact T r u m p ' s fault? 

(Spaced because of REDDIT censorship)

Limp-Mastodon4600

Do you think Pakistan will ever be forced to give up its nukes by the USA

Far_Piglet_9596

What were the flaws in the agreement that lead to the deals collapse?

How does it feel to work for 15 years and then an orange toddler destroys everything?

AverellCZ

I’ve been working under the assumption that pretty much anyone with enough dedication and money could nuclear Boy Scout their way to some form a nuclear weapon. Like any billionaire could have a bunch. How far wrong am I?

beatrixbrie

The United Nations Security Council has failed to adopt the draft resolution that would give continued sanctions relief for Iran as per the JCPOA

This means that SnapBack has now been officially activated, and UN sanctions against Iran will take effect at 8pm on September 27th.

aWhiteWildLion

If China and Russia don’t respect the resolution (as they’ve suggested they’re not going to) then I’m not sure what this actually does. I guess it was “use it or lose it” situation. 

kindagoodatthis

Iran bots jumped on this thread immediately.

This actions shows that while the general population on the West might be confused, as least a critical mass of politicians still know what’s going on.

The real question is what kinds of measures, covert or otherwise, are being used to ensure compliance?

Honestly, I just pity the poor Iranians. Shia Muslims aren’t even a majority, and it must be maddening to see your government destroy your place in the world, and your own economy, by spending g tax dollars on nuclear facilities that will just get bombed in a few years. And I can’t say that if I lived there I’d have the courage to revolt. The violence that suppers the system is terrifying.

ADP_God

TheWolfofBinance

Nuclear non proliferation no longer makes sense. The greatest stabilizer to international relations is wmds. We should be criticizing Iran for a lot, such as human rights abuses, sponsoring terrorism, supporting Ukraine war off aggression etc. The list is long. I support sanctioning them for all sorts of reasons, but not for wanting to be a country. 

Any country who wants to be a country, who's conventional military is not the best in the world, and who has even one adversary, needs wmds. I want canada to have a chemical weapons program. Let's sanction them for an actual good reason, on an issue that they may budge on.

gooberfishie

Illegal snapback, invalid under UN law since the US quit JCPOA in 2018. They leave a deal and still trigger its rights. Besides, after 18th Oct, Resolution 2231 expires so only western unilateral sanctions remain, not UN law. Too bad, China and Russia will continue to do business with Iran as usual.

God bless Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei, his wisdom and strength. If reformists like Zarif, Rafsanjani &amp; Rouhano got their way with a JCPOA 2, Iran would not even have any missiles today to respond to Israeli terrorism.

PracticalBook8901

Go to the actual AMA guys, questions here won't be answered.

Uranophane

To what level did Iran enrich its Uranium? Are there civilian applications for Uranium enriched to that level? Where did Iran get the carbon fiber, maraging steel and vacuum pumps for its "domestically produced" centrifuges?

TopsyPopsy

Who do you blame for the failure of the deal?

Chevy_jay4

What is the incentive for iran to now negotiate? 


Context is on whim targetted attacks on iranian leadership by Israel. I am assuming this is with US approval also ? 

Why would Iran negotiate? And what is the sanctity of western commitments ?

lukup

It looks like he only answered questions in the actual AMA sub. Some good insight though

Will512

How far beyond the limits of the NPT does the deal allow Iran to go? 

Colodanman357

The Iran deal was a joke, I'm all for non-profilration , and de-esclation in the realm of nukes , however Iran pretty much kept doing what it wanted, blocked investigators, hid centrifuges, and as seen in the recent 12 day war was very close to obtaining the thresholdevel to make nuclear weapons.

Psychological-Flow55

Trump said the other day that they have new nukes. He used the word new. He also said they have more than anybody when I thought the Russians had the most, officially.

Is that legal?

Can treaty members develop new nukes as long as they decommission one for every new one they make?

Cheers

fudgedhobnobs

These mofos, when Israel already developed a bomb, commits genocide, bombs six countries in 3 days, committing genocide, and their PM is a fugitive from ICC.

Gaijinrr

I wouldn't blame Iran one bit for pursuing nuclear weapons. Having nukes will protect them invasion and aggression from a certain blood thirsty state (I shall not mention names).

Accurate-Scholar-264

It makes sense to sanction a country that has a secret nuclear weapons facility, enriched uranium it stole from the USA, is actively committing genocide, has leaders wanted by the ICC…… wait they are sanctioning Iran and not Israel?

DopeShitBlaster

So the “E3” is sanctioning iran for its so called nuclear program. They call for the recognition of a “palestinian state”. At the same time, they are actively helping israel (weapons, reconnaissance flights, intelligence etc) fight a defenseless population in gaza. And im supposed to believe them when they say big bad russia is sending drones into our space??? Sure!! E3 can be trusted about as much as agent orange in the usa…..

Emotional_Gazelle_37

In uk electricity to charge car cost 1 pound per kwh
Let that sink in
All that wisdom of their's

Wizzzzzzzzzzz

This was always the plan. Even if they dismantled the nuclear programme and their whole military on top.

badpersian

Only your power on the third world countries. When its cone to mass Genocide you are useless orginzation.
UN must be vanish.
It's  a big lie.

Mikemike59

I agree with the author that purely from the standpoint of civilian nuclear, there’s little sense in Iran insisting on keeping enrichment capacity. The costs of their civilian nuclear program have been huge and the civilian benefit has been minimal.

But setting aside the civilian use, I don’t really understand the author’s argument on why Iran would agree to give up their latent nuclear deterrent. This paragraph in particular was hard for me to understand:

&gt; Israeli bombing of the sites that support weaponization has likely delayed Iran’s ability to produce nuclear warheads to be mated to missiles, although it is uncertain by how much. A few crude bombs could be built without further enrichment to 90 percent by using the less-effective 60 percent enriched material, if any of it survived the Israeli and American attacks. But Iran has had the capability to sprint to a few bombs, which could be employed in a one-time attack or as a terrorist weapon, for perhaps two decades. It hasn’t done so and likely will not now, especially since it is in the crosshairs of and virtually defenseless against Israeli and American air attacks and deeply infiltrated by Israel intelligence services. We believe Iran was hedging its nuclear bets all along to amass a sufficiently large stockpile of bomb-grade uranium for missile-deliverable nuclear warheads to serve as a deterrent against Israel. Such a nuclear deterrent has been set back by many years.

The author seems to be downplaying the value of Iran’s latent nuclear deterrent, but I’m confused by the assertion that the nuclear warhead deterrent has been set back by “many years” despite starting the paragraph by acknowledging that we don’t know how much the strikes have set them back in their ability to make warheads. 

The author also acknowledges elsewhere that Iran may have retained its stockpile of 60% enriched uranium. And — to his credit since so many authors don’t seem to understand this — he also discusses how the remaining steps to the bomb (enriching 60-&gt;90, uranium conversion, weaponization research) don’t require massive infrastructure like Fordow and Natanz, but can be done in small hidden facilities and workshops. 

So in what way have they been set back many years? Best I can tell, the author is taking it as a given that Iran won’t race for a bomb while it’s in a vulnerable state like it is now. I’m not sure why they are so confident in that. 

Yes, the US and Israeli can inflict a lot of pain on Iran if they rush towards a bomb, but we can’t stop them. Airstrikes are very effective against massive facilities like Natanz and Fordow with thousands of centrifuges bolted to the ground, but much less effective when the target is 10,000 scientists spread out in small workshops and classrooms across the entire country. 

Maybe being in a vulnerable state like Iran is now, with your enemies bragging about how dominant their forces are, is exactly the time that you become willing to endure a few years of pain to get a nuclear weapon. 

________

The biggest hurdle I see in getting Iran to agree to zero enrichment is establishing the trust that would require. Such a deal would inevitably also require destroying or moving all of its highly enriched uranium to a third country, stopping production of new centrifuges and basically dismantling any remaining enrichment infrastructure. What happens if the very next day after they do that, Donald Trump (again) unilaterally rips up the nuclear deal and says “get punk’d idiots, sanctions are back on until you agree to more conditions.” Iran will have set itself back years from a nuclear deterrent in exchange for something the US and Israel can reverse at a moment’s notice. 

Between the US withdrawal and the Israeli surprise attack 2 days before negotiations were set to take place, Iran has little reason to trust the US and Israel would act in good faith. Retaining the capacity to enrich (capped to 3.67%) seems essential to any deal they might agree to, simply as a protection against another US withdrawal from the agreement. 

_____

Last thing I wanted to say about this article is that I don’t think they make any argument for why the US should insist on zero-enrichment. The author seems to acknowledge that Iran has been very hesitant to actually go nuclear and has mainly used the nuclear program as a latent deterrent, so what’s the harm in letting them keep enrichment up to 3.67%, assuming we have strict monitoring in place like the IAEA’s additional protocol? This is what Iran opened negotiations with back in April when speaking to the US envoy.

oskanta

ttown2011

I really can't see why Iran would. The US and Israel don't seem to want to invade, I can't imagine that making a deal with the US seems credible... So you need a regime backstop which is a nuke, just need to test one.

Neowarcloud

If they want to maintain any semblance of sovereignty, they absolutely should not agree to that lol

dpavlicko

From a realpolitik pov, I don't know why they would do that. Trump randomly thrashed the prior deal that they were in compliance with. Russia and China won't shield them if Trump decides to do a regime change....They could have sold them a nuclear warhead ages ago for permanent deterrence as well. The fact that Kim Dynasty sits so comfortably and Ukraine/Iraq was invaded on lies doesn't really leave a good reason for them to recommit.

fuggitdude22

It's bizarre watching the internet argue that Iran should have nukes

DrippingPickle

They can enrich the 5% or whatever needed for civilian programmes. Enriching to 60% was just reckless. I'm not saying I endorse the attacks on Iran, but they were playing with fire and they knew it.

polemism

Writing at the *Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists* website, Hoover Institution Research Fellow [Abbas Milani](https://www.hoover.org/profiles/abbas-milani) and Stanford emeritus professor of management science and engineering Siegfried S. Hecker argue that, “following the extensive Israeli bombing of Iran’s nuclear complex, supplemented by American attacks on the better-protected Iranian sites, the time has come for Iran’s leaders to reconsider their past intransigent, deceptive posture and instead pursue a nuclear power program that will benefit the Iranian people.” Milani, a leading authority on Iranian politics, and Hecker, a former director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, review key historical moments that led to the current standoff over Iran’s nuclear program. Turning to the role of US policy, the authors conclude, “It is now important for President Trump to get Israel to stop the bombing and follow through with Iran to consummate a deal that will benefit the people of Iran and take a big step toward peace in the region.”

HooverInstitution

There was a deal. Trump ended it. F off Maga loons.

Hertje73

There’s so much talk about the Iranian nuclear programme being delayed for x period of time. Guys. *Guys*. More time has elapsed since Trump backed out of the deal than it took to design and deploy two different nuclear weapon designs in WWII. If Iran genuinely wanted nukes as much as people claim, they’d have them. They already have the deployment mechanisms. 

It is absurdly clear they didn’t want to actually take that last step and create the bomb a couple months ago. That’s been the IC’s opinion for years, too. I’m old enough to remember the “Iraq has WMDs” talk in 2023; this is the exact same song and dance. The only real difference is the intended scale of involvement on the ground.

PausedForVolatility

Yes yes we are the most righteous people because we are in the Bible also yes we also have nuke because we are the chosen one - israel

If not for USA and aipac, Israel will be gone in no time. Also don't talk about Gaza, because there is no war in Gaza strip.

Every_West_3890

It’s too bad the citizens, the true Iranians, couldn’t use the Israeli strike to enact regime change. Hopefully in our lifetime there will be a free and prosperous Iran.

ChaLenCe

We're getting to the point where the international community has to ask whether the current Iranian regime should be allowed to have nuclear power in general.

Cultural-Flow7185

Religious fanatics and the IRGC are in control there will be no deal until they are gone.

MeatPiston

Iran's Foreign Minister announced that cooperation with the IAEA is 'no longer relevant' following the reimposition of international sanctions, affecting diplomatic relations.

Iran Nuclear Cooperation and Sanctions

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want