The public sentiment on Iran's nuclear negotiations is largely negative and skeptical, with many commenters expressing doubts about the sincerity of both the U.S. and Iran in the deal. Concerns about Iran's historical non-compliance, the potential for nuclear proliferation, and perceived double standards in international policies, particularly regarding Israel, dominate discussions. There is also a significant distraction from the seriousness of the matter due to off-topic comments about presentation details. However, a minority of comments advocate for diplomatic engagement and express national pride among Iranian commenters.

Iran

United States

Israel

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

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

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

A few things:


1. In general, no country want other countries, even their ally's to have nuclear weapons (as an ally today may not always be an ally tomorrow, and a stable country today may not necessarily be a stable country tomorrow). They are absolutely devastating weapons and I think many leaders who have nuclear weapons would agree it would have been better if nuclear weapons were never invented. 


2. Iran is an enemy of many western countries. The current regime has not only openly called for the end of Israel, but has openly called for the end of America. You would not want your enemy to get their hands on extremely dangerous weapons. 


3. Some people say that countries only want nuclear weapons so they can threaten other countries with nuclear weapons. Meaning 'you don't use nuclear weapons on us, and we won't use them on you' as it would be mutually assured destruction (MAD). However this only works if the leadership is stable, not an islamic terrorist organisation. Islamic terrorist organisations adopt the doctrine of martyrdom, and believe they will go to heaven if they die for their cause, so MAD is not as much of a deterrence here. They are more likely to actually use a nuclear weapon, and if you don't understand why that would be terrible, then I can't help you. 


4. Lastly the Iranian regime is a part of an extremist Shia Islam. They believe that the prophet Mahdi will return when Israel is destroyed which is a big reason why they have been trying to destroy Israel pretty much since they took over Iran in 1979. 

Charlie4s

First, Iran is an antagonist not only to the United States, but also Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and all of the other Sunni Islamic nations.  If Iran does get a nuclear weapon, let's say it IS for self defense, then Turkey, Egypt, SA, all of the rest will all also start an arms race to get their own nuclear weapons.  The middle east is not a stable region, there are coups, revolutions and crazy dictators that come and go.  Israel has a nuke and has a stable government, but everyone gets scared when a nuclear nation has a violent change of leadership - who is next? who will get control next? 

Once there is another nuclear nation, all of the non-nuclear nations will be begging the US to act as a nuclear deterrent and that will put the US deeper into the politics of the region than we already are. 

It's not entirely the first order effect of Iran having a nuclear weapon for defense that the US and rest of the world is worried about.  It's also the second and third order effects and the threat of a middle east with 5 nuclear countries and the chance that any of them lose control.

timotheo

The answer is pretty straightforward.

1.) the Islamic Republic of Iran is explicitly a genocidal theocratic state that is also the largest sponsor of extremist violent wahhabist terrorism in the world. They have stated goals of destroying Israel and wiping out the Jews, as well as wiping out all Zoroastrians, Christians, and polytheists in the world. They brutally oppress their own people in Iran, too. Women, queer people, non-muslims (especially Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians), and anyone who practices Islam "incorrectly" according to the Ayatollahs and their clerics. The punishments for these "crimes" are often public beatings and humiliation, or even execution. Iran has destroyed ancient heritage sites and important archeological sites, such as temples to Mesopotamian polytheist deities, and pre-Islamic Persian, Arab, Kurdish, Yezidi, Bedouin, and Druze cultural sites and artifacts. They give money and weapons to terrorist groups such as ISIS, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the militant anti-Hindu groups in Pakistan, Kashmir, India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. And they rule Iranian citizens and residents (Persian and non-Persian, Muslim and non-muslim) with fear and murder, not rule of law or equal respect, dignity, and opportunity.

2.) Iran are a global threat militarily and diplomatically, who align themselves with China and Russia and North Korea in an attempt to take down the Western powers and NATO. If Iran got ahold of nuclear weapons capabilities, they would drastically shift the balance of power and control on the world stage in a way that would be much more dangerous for everyone, especially those who are aligned with the Western civilizations such as USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, the UK, EU countries, NATO members, the Nordic Council, and so on. Denying Iran nuclear weapons capabilities is a matter of strategic defense and the values of pluralistic liberal democracy, as opposed to autocracy and authoritarianism.

3.) nuclear proliferation in general is freaking scary and dangerous. The scientific community, humanitarian organizations, peace organizations, and the United Nations all acknowledge that the more nukes there are in the world total, and the more spread around they are, the more likely it is for a nuclear world war to start and the planet to become completely uninhabitable by over 90% of lifeforms for hundreds if not thousands of years, with potentially irreversible damage being done to the atmosphere, soil, water, and magnetosphere of Earth. In short, Mutually Assured Destruction, and the extinction of the human species.

&gt;I’m sure they’re smart enough to figure out if they launched a nuke af us or our allies it would quite literally end the world or at least guarantee their own extinction


You are talking about a group that is kinda known for suicide bombings. 


If their extremist religious ideas support the idea that if they die in a war (with israel) they are martyrs, then even if they are smart enough to realize it would be the end of the world. They would find that an acceptable offer since they get to go to heaven.

BackupChallenger

The world is inherently adversarial. Iran is among the worst of the bunch. They have a completely different value system (if you can even call it that) and a well-demonstrated willingness to impose it through violence, wherever they can.

For those who believe they simply want them for ‘self-defense’, take a look at Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks. Consider the endless militias they have funded with their oil money. Are these defensive? Do they only operate in Iran? 

Perhaps most importantly, who are Iran’s supporters? Russia, which is currently invading one its neighbors, China, which has *explicit* designs for their neighbors, North Korea, which has been habitually terrorizing its neighbors for decades… These are all global misfits. They are only aligned because what they want to inflict on the world is *not allowed*.

InsufferableMollusk

Iran officially plans to destroy israel by 2040. They even have a countdown clock 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-al-quds-day-protest-clock-president-hassan-rouhani-a7806056.html


Whereas Israel just calls for regime change in Iran, Iran calls for complete destruction of Israel including its people.

wavefield

I've noticed r/politics has had a flood of angry outraged people insisting that letting Iran have nukes would actually help to keep world peace.  That its "only fair" they have them too since Israel has them.  The amount of posts, the absolute certainty of their convictions, and their angry outrage makes me think they are a bunch of bots trying to brainwash the younger generation.

The sad thing is, brainwashing seems to almost always work.

OP, be careful of propaganda.  It just takes one crazy dictator who has the power of nukes to kill almost everyone in the entire world.  I'm actually scared that putin, who's quite clearly a malignant narcissist that doesnt care about anyone else, may decide to take the world with him if he gets a terminal disease and is about to die.

It only takes one crazy dictator and the chances of there being a crazy dictator increases with every country that gets nuclear weapons.

Arming Iran is especially bad as they support suicide bombings and do not seem to care for life the way we do.  They've also threatened to attack so many different countries its literally crazy to to be living in one of the threatened countries and want to allow them to have nukes.

Hobobo2024

https://www.reddit.com/r/centrist/s/LzwYhOfDbN

plum-moonlight

"their government might not be the best"

Iran is not a country that the US simply has policy or ideological disagreement with.

This is a country that openly supports terrorism. Hamas is just a recent example. Their fundamentalist regime is opposed to Israel's existence and openly calls for its total destruction.

Think about what that means - it's basically saying you're my neighbor. I'm gonna kill you simply because you and I pray to in different gods.

The US has fundamental ideological differences with many countries - the Chinese communist party is an example. But the US has never advocated military actions against China or the toppling of its government; neither has China.

first off i’d say we need to just get rid of nukes all together, they pose too much of a threat to the world. even if no leader wants to launch their nukes first, there have been several moments in history when simulators accidentally turned on and nukes were also launched as a retaliatory measure, despite no one actually launching warheads in the first place. **the world almost ended because of a computer glitch**

If Iran gets nukes, it changes power dynamics in the world. Currently the countries with nuclear warheads and nuclear capabilities are:
- the U.S.
- the UK
- France
- Russia 
- China
- North Korea
- India
- Pakistan
- Israel (supposedly has warheads)

Other countries have had them in the past
- Ukraine (warheads were left in the Ukrainian SSR when the USSR collapsed. The warheads were given to the Russian Federation in a treaty.  
- Kazakhstan (same as Ukraine)
- South Africa (developed their own warheads)

There are also some countries in NATO and CSTO that share nukes with the U.S., UK or Russia.

If Iran develops warheads, it escalates the Middle Eastern cold war and conflicts. Currently, the U.S., UK, China and Russia have agreed not to create more warheads (though they could be in secret when you consider black budgets). 

India and Pakistan have not agreed to this and they basically do have them pointed at each other.

Iranian warheads would create an India-Pakistan situation between Iran and Israel. But caught in the middle would be the entire middle east. Iran also hates most of the world: Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc. their only allies in the region are autonomous rebel armies that they supply.

Iceberg-man-77

Iran is the greatest investor of state sponsored terrorism on the planet.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

Iran is also run by a theocracy who works with paramilitary groups with a culture of Martyrdom and a belief in the rapture and end of the world. 

It goes without saying that with this context, Iran is not the most ideal civilization to be allowed by the rest of humanity to produce nuclear weapons.

That said, the entire country isn't like that and I think if the Supreme Leader was changed to not be a theocracy then Iran would likely moderate and change for the better. 

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

therosx

I'm against Iran having nukes as it would lead more ME countries to persue it, and I don't like having more nuclear armed countries in general. However, this can easily be done by reimplementing the Obama deal rather than starting a war with them (which I strongly oppose). I also believe Israel should denuke.

AntiWokeCommie

I think the idea is that people believe them to be an irrational actor, who may not mind setting off a nuke against a country because of religious beliefs or whatever and thus may not care about the "MA" part of "MAD."

I don't.  Probably the more practical reason that there's opposition to them having a nuke is that they can project more power/bully more countries in their region.  Except for Israel, who has nukes.  It's why countries want them.

Educational_Impact93

Iran's government's goal is death to Israel and America, not rational self defense and self interest. They are a revolutionary theocracy. They are religious nuts for whom dying for the cause is martyrdom. This is all at the expense of their own people whose importance ranks far below their ideology. They sponsor terrorist organizations that advance these religious goals. They are antagonists to other countries including their Islamic neighbors as well.

If you don't understand why such a government having nukes is terrible I don't know what to say. Them "accidentally " having a loose nuke incident that ends up in the hands of jihadists would be an expected result.

[Podcast with Iran expert](https://youtu.be/c_WO0x4ERV0?si=INzC6x0HkXd7_f_6)

they will immediately use a nuclear bomb because of their religion and believe them starting a holy war will bring the return of al-Mahdi.

Holiday_Chapter_4251

You know how we can't do much to Russia for fear of them using nukes? That's why

Jimbo-Shrimp

I think it’s super interesting that I’m reading all these comments about how Iran is adversarial to Western countries, is a genocidal theocracy, and has a jihadist mindset so cannot have nuclear weapons. The US is adversarial to the entire world, including their neighbours, uses Christianity to overturn federal laws and justify their military actions on countries not strong enough to defend against them, and also, one very important point: the United States of America is the ONLY country in this entire world that has ACTUALLY dropped nuclear bombs on another country, after said country surrendered. I mean, if there is any country that should be disarmed and not allowed to have nuclear bombs is the US of fucking A.

EstablishmentMean497

Nah they are doing it for entirely scientific purposes bro

CrankyGrumpyWombat

Well it's not so bad, IMO. Now, to be clear, I do not want Iran to obtain a nuke just like I don't want North Korea to have one. But I try to look at the world as a realist. The Iranian regime is made up, in part, of conservative religious fanatics. Islamic fundamentaists. But, they have also shown themselves to be reasonable and interested in self-preservation. That being the preservation of the Islamic regime. I truly believe Iran's main interest in obtaining a nuclear weapon is purely for deterrence and preservation of their awful rule. I do not believe, like many neo-cons do, that Iran will use its nuclear weapon as soon as they obtain a functional nuclear warhead. Iran is a lot of bark and very little bite. They can chant "Death to America" until their heart's content so long as it stays only verbal which I believe, based on the history of the Islamic Republic, that it will.

CleverNombre

Iran essentially IS Hezbollah, and supporters, with both arms and finance, some of the worst terror groups in the Middle East. They have a stated goal of obliterating Israel and have attempted it, repeatedly. They were key players in every invasion against Israel to date.


As far as Israel is concerned, Iran having nukes is grounds to deploy their own in perceived self defence.


Add the general bullshit in the area, not great for regional stability.

Spida81

The nuclear bomb isn't even the issue. If it were, the warhawks would have gone after the real big players like Russia or China, or even North Korea when they started building up their nuclear powers. 

It's all about oil policies and profits for wars in foreign countries. We spent 20+ years in Afghanistan and Iraq "fighting the war on terror" after 9/11, but in reality the US military was building up pipelines for oil and gas industries. Soldiers died building and protecting these pipelines for corporation profits. 

On the homefront, we were supposed to believe it was to stop terrorism. We spent millions of dollars A DAY bombing and taking out entire poor and destitute cities, running out or killing people hungry and living in caves in the poorest parts of the world for territory instead of putting the money into our own US economy. 

The real reason they want to side with Israel for an Iran war is because it borders our oil pipelines already built in Iraq.

Financial-Special766

I have been listening to a great podcast called, Talk Iran. It has been very interesting to hear about the history and the timeline of how they became such an adversary of the US. I highly recommend a listen. 

CapitalInspection488

Before readint allat you will say it's islamic terrorist shit yeah whatever itan should have nukes

WorkerLeather2803

the US and Israeli governments and elites believe Israel must have “qualitative military edge” over all of the Middle eastern countries

if you google this you can see that US congress made this a law. by US law israel must have a huge advantage over the rest of the region 

——

[US support for Israel has been immoral since 1948](https://www.reddit.com/r/Global_News_Hub/comments/1ij11wd/comment/mbcyfk3/). Since 1967, the [US has helped the Israelis invade Palestinian territory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Israeli_settlements) with over 750,000 people in violation of international law. My fellow Americans have helped the Israelis kill 150,000 Arabs over this time and this has been evil on our part. The entire conflict's root cause has been deliberately misrepresented to the US public for more than 75 years.

US policy regarding Israel [led to the 9/11 attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks), the $ [8 trillion war on terror](https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/BudgetaryCosts) (the wealth equivalent of 20 million homes), [7,000 US soldier deaths](https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/military), 50,000 injured soldiers, 30,000 additional veteran suicides, and the [Iraq and Afghanistan wars.](https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby) And for decades, the US has [refused to put any pressure on Israel ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel#Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty_and_United_Nations)to have them join the NPT and disarm their hundreds of nukes, while [nearly all of the Middle East's 450 million people have sought this](https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2013-10/news/iaea-members-reject-israel-resolution).

Mundane_Molasses6850

Hitchens:  "The one thing we've -- since I was at school lying awake worrying what happens when apocalyptic weaponry is grabbed hold of, laid hold of, by messianic totalitarian forces. Well, we are about to find out. If we want to run that experiment, they're ready to do it for us."

[https://www.rferl.org/a/transcript\_conversation\_with\_christopher\_hitchens/2244720.html](https://www.rferl.org/a/transcript_conversation_with_christopher_hitchens/2244720.html)

jordipg

I’m Gen X first war I experienced was Vietnam War. Gulf War Afghanistan War that lasted 20 years. And every other conflict in between from 60’s to now 
We should have never helped Middle East with Russia. 
Russia would have learned that they could not defeat them before US got involved. 
We had a very precarious relationship with the Middle East at that time. 
But we did and then US end up fighting a country they were sent  to protect against Russia. 
Don’t make sense does it? 
Problem was they underestimated the Middle East They have no real civilization, they have been fighting each other since antiquity (biblical days) they live in the most harshest climate in the world They now how to survive and fight on that harsh terrain &amp; know there land. 
Any civilization is not going to win against that no matter how much military training they have 
Also is alot of psychological warfare that military men suffer from the environment but middle eastern people that’s all they know 
That war lasted 20 years. As long as Vietnam war. Which we also had no reason to get in the middle of that either. We lost that too. My uncle was Army Ranger and he came back really messed up and never recovered. Drank a lot. Still had nightmares and PTSD until he died from cancer which he got from the Agent Orange the US used to kill the foliage in Vietnam 
I’ve lived a long time, was a humanitarian of many continents and have seen suffering from war or an extremist that starved over 350,000 of his own people (Somalia) and had wars going a majority of my life. 

Regular-Song-6799

I think the crux of the issue is, would Iran be crazy enough to use nukes on Israel if it got them, knowing Israel has nukes too and would retaliate? Yes, several of its politicians have been fanatical and have threatened Israel with destruction, but what matters is whether the actual guys in charge would do it. It seems to me that Iran's actions in the past, while often despicable, have not been insane.

viperfish_01

The Abrahamic religions are violent in nature.  History shows a trail of war and aggression between Jews / Christians / Islam, all claiming God justifies their actions.  It is a mess.  There are more good people that live in Iran than bad.  Unfortunately, when bad people get power they can become dangerous and disruptive - Trump is a perfect example of this.  Unfortunately, many leaders in the middle-east also fall into this category.  Add Russia and North Korea to the mix and we've got a real problem on our hands.  I question the crazed bomb the hell out of Iran approach.  There was a real diplomatic process in place with every country in the UN Security council signed on until Trump pulled out of it.  Trump's posturing is nothing more than lies, his modus operandi, hiding his real intent of regime change and full imperialistic control of the Middle-East oil.  God forbid the US Petrodollar system is replaced with Chinese Yuan!  Instead of dealing with our deficit by building an appropriate tax base and managing spending we are running our deficits up to support billionaires and risk Gen Z's future.  If the dollar is no longer the major currency, countries will pull away from the US bond market which funds our deficit spending and our economy suffers greatly.  Demon Boy, I would highly suggest you and your Gen Z buds screw your heads on straight and vote intelligently in this next election if you want to continue to continue to experience a wealthy democracy.  MAGA is NOT the answer, but the problem.

kintotal

Nuclear weapon should have NEVER been invented. I don't get why folks are still fighting religious wars in 2025. Have you noticed that all four corners of the globe worksip a different God?

Junior_Occasion9776

Well Irans leaders have vowed to use those nukes to destroy Israel AND America. 


When somebody tells you who they are and what they want you should believe them. 

JaneDi

Because Israel seeks to avoid any regional power that could challenge its unchecked control and ongoing occupation.

LaDainianTomIinson

Not bad for the US or US interests. Not good for Israel or Saudi. Since these two sides provide parasitically major funding and networking to both sides of aisle of Congress and to Trump personally, we see what we see. The US groveling.

Idaho1964

If North Korea can manage to have nukes and not use them then I think Iran can as well. No body uses nukes. Let them eat cake

gravitywind1012

Iran's Foreign Minister has expressed willingness to consider a proposal from the U.S. regarding nuclear negotiations amid ongoing tensions.

Iran Nuclear Negotiations

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want