Public sentiment regarding the termination of the Iran Nuclear Deal is polarized, characterized by strong support for Iran's assertion of sovereignty and concerns about increasing conflict and nuclear proliferation. While some celebrate Iran's right to pursue nuclear capabilities as a deterrent, others express alarm over the breakdown of diplomatic relations and the potential for war, particularly in light of previous U.S. policy decisions.

Iran

United States

International Community

The nuclear agreement that trump backed out of

CAM6913

An international deal with Iran designed to keep the world safe from the spread of atomic weapons has officially ended, with Tehran announcing the termination of the decade-old agreement.

Iran said on Saturday that it was no longer bound by the 2015 agreement, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), under which international sanctions were lifted in exchange for limitations.


From now on “all of the provisions [of the 2015 deal], including the restrictions on the Iranian nuclear programme and the related mechanisms are considered terminated”, Iran’s foreign ministry said in a statement.

However, it added that the country “firmly expresses its commitment to diplomacy”.

Signed in Vienna by Iran, China, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and the US, it was hoped the agreement would end the years-long diplomatic standoff and mark the beginning of a new era in relations between Iran and the west.

coinfanking

PabloDiabalo

All trump knows how to do is break things for others and take for himself. 

sockydraws

Why would Iran honor an agreement when even when they do, the West double crosses them? They get generals assassinated out of the blue, attacked when they’re supposed to be having peace talks, and everyone knows Israel wants to destroy them and all while it (Israel) won’t comply with any IAEA treated or nonproliferation concepts?

Conscious-Wolf-6233

Post is flaired QUESTION. Stick to the question 

Please report bad faith commenters 

Push yourself .. because no one else is going to do your laundry.

VAWNavyVet

No, I don't think there would be a "war" going on with Iran had Trump not pulled out of the deal.

By pulling out of the deal, Iran has no reason to make any agreements with the United States.  Why should it?  Due to Trump's poor foreign policy, the United States has shown that it won't act in good faith on agreements its made with other countries.  Why make a deal that weakens your country when you know the other side is unlikely to keep it.  Seriously, Trump is complaining about the trade deal **he** made with Canada and Mexico and went and put tariffs on them... going against said trade deal.  Iran has no reason to trust the United States government to honor its deals.

Second, Trump reinstated sanctions.  Well, the government of Iran now has to deal with the issues caused by those sanctions, which results in Iran being weakened as a regional power and as a country.

What's the best way to strengthen one's position in the international power game of foreign policy?  To have nuclear weapons.  And to push for more power in one's own region.

I'm not saying Iran would turn into some democratic liberal country if Trump hadn't pulled out of the deal, the United States fucked that up in the 70s; but, Iran would have little to no reason to start a war or invest in nuclear weapon research.

Seriously, look at the situation in Ukraine.  Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees from western countries to protect them from potential invasion by its neighbors.  And thanks to Trump, we really aren't honoring that deal either.  

Seriously, why would any country not try to get their hands on nuclear weapons at this point?  The only way to be taken seriously right now is to be able to cause MAD.

Severe-Independent47

Of course not. Trump is clearly directly responsible for the current crisis.

cossiander

Nope. It would not have. We had this covered with diplomacy. No war.

DiscretelyDeviant

Probably not, but that's why Trump pulled out of the treaty in the first place. He wanted his war with Iran. He was constantly trying to get Iran to retaliate as a justification for war in his first term.

poketrainer32

The JCPOA was working. The stockpiling of enriched nuclear material started again after Trump broke the deal.

RandomEngy

 No. I don’t think this would be happening right now.

vibes86

Maybe but that's mainly because the claims that Iran is close to having nuclear weapons is completely made up and I have no doubts Israel and the Trump administration would lie about it if the Iran Nuclear Deal were still in place. 

With that said, if the goal was to keep Iran from getting nukes, staying in the deal would've been the best way to do that.

Sky-Trash

Yes. Iran is on the 7 countries clean break strategy. This was a long time cooking. 


Israel has been saying Iran is close to a nuclear bomb for 20 years. It hasn't happened. Even by Israel's own propaganda estimate today, Iran is a year away from cresting a nuclear weapon. 


US intelligence showed Iran was still compliant with no-proliferation agreements and had no intentions of a non-civilian nuclear program.


The trigger for this war wasn't Iran violating the agreement even though the agreement no longer exists. The trigger of the war Israel attacking. Israel would have attacked regardless.

burrito_napkin

It's more complicated than that, but Trump's policies toward Iran, Israel, and Palestine didn't help.

reluctant-return

Contrary to the Israeli bleating for the past 40 years, especially from the world biggest liar netanyahu, Iran was never interested in launching a nuclear strike on anyone in the Middle East. Every nation has the right to defend itself, and every nation has the right to manufacture war material. 

Thr Israeli have no superior status to make demands of anyone. It's time the Americans stop their posturing too.

ritzcrv

There probably would have been a war eventually. Israel has been yelling that Iran is very close to making a nuke since the 1980s; no matter what treaties or inspections or whatever would have been in place it would have become a pretext when convenient eventually.

Which is now.

Moppermonster

Israel wasn't going to ever give up on taking out Iran


You could make the argument that Iran is weaker today because of sanctions. 

Israel has seemingly the perfect opportunity to move Iran, including bozo in chief letting Bibi sabotage the US and diplomacy.

dudeandco

I don't think so, but it's not directly tied to Iran's nuclear program. Iran and Israel have been enemies to the death for decades - without the US basically making Israel untouchable, Iran probably would have attacked some time in the last 50 years, but the reverse is also true. Israel is very beholden to the US and so the US has some control on the leash. Biden pulled the leash back, Trump let it go.

Pulling out of the deal probably made this conflict more or less inevitable (and guaranteed nuclear proliferation around the world, long term) because Iran had every reason TO develop the nuke at that point if the deal wasn't re-established. But the conflict now isn't so much about Iran having a nuke, I'm deeply skeptical of Israeli claims that they were "days" away from a functional nuclear warhead. Instead, I think four things are largely converging to make the war inevitable:

-Trump gov, obviously.

-A lot of major players don't like the Iranian government, and want it gone. Iran, US, etc. "We want Iran gone" isn't really a controversial opinion in US foreign policy/security circles, pretty bipartisan. Israel/Iran eternal vendetta goes here.

-Israel can kind of do whatever the fuck it wants because the US won't let it fall so it can punch up as much as it wants, so long as the US tacitly/explicitly approves. Therefore they aren't really THAT scared of a war, as long as Iran cannot credibly missile bomb them.

-And the big one, Iran is just weak right now. They are at war and they are putting on a paper tiger display so far. Maybe terminally so, we'll all find out in the coming days and weeks.

Pulling out of the deal allowed Trump to reinstate sanctions and those, in turn, weakened Iran. Over a long enough time scale you get to where we are today, where their ballistic missile reserves are seemingly much lower than predicted and they lack the mass saturation fire ability to really pound Israel in a retaliatory kind of way. I am honestly not surprised by the war, it seemed somewhat inevitable to me after the attacks last year.

Israel seems to have been seriously emboldened after all their attacks in 2024 going so incredibly, and Iran's retaliation being so weak. Now that we are in a full-blown war between the two, Iran has been able to muster hot words but not the hot shots they need to win. They're pretty clearly seriously vulnerable. Without the US to hold them back, and with Iran so vulnerable, an Israeli strike was pretty much inevitable IMHO after 2024.

So, no, if Trump had not pulled out of the deal I don't think we would have this war but that is more of a factor of sanctions over time wearing down Iranian missile reserves/replenishment creating terminal geopolitical vulnerability rather than a credible nuclear threat in my opinion. The nuclear threat is just a stick to wave around to justify the war and the regime change that Israel/US/West have been hungering to install for decades. ANY war started with Iran would have always been justified by "They are about to get nukes" as long as they didn't shut down the Strait or outright start a war on their own.

As an aside, I think the worst case outcomes here are the Strait of Hormuz getting shut down somehow for an extended period, a dirty bomb ICBM attack, or an extended Syrian-esque situation.

KingOfSockPuppets

Difficult to know. I suspect Netanyahu wanted to attack Iran and would have found a reason to regardless. However, I do not know if that is the case.

AnymooseProphet

BigNorseWolf

Of course it would. Iran started stockpiling 60% enriched uranium since 2021. 
People need to stop talking about shit they know nothing about. Iran has been working on nukes for decades, the nukes deal only delayed them, while allowing them to build all the infrastructure necessary to build nukes. Oct 7 was the catalyst for wven more 60% enriched Uranium, not Trump pulling out of the deal, a deal that Iran had very little reason to keep once it was advanced enough. 


https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/13/middleeast/iran-nuclear-program-explainer-intl-dg

Hatook123

He guaranteed Israel would have to respond.

ThunderPigGaming

Yes, it’s one thing the Dems and GOP politicians are in lock step about, war and unconditional submissive support to Israel.


It was always Israel’s plan to have America topple Iran for them.
Just like we did to Iraq based on Bibis assurance that they had WMDs, or his guarantee that removing Saddam would have enormous positive repercussions for the region.

The timing just coincidentally happens to be right when the world is realising the horrors happening in Gaza and majority support is turning against them.
Wait a new war in Iran.

The US is now at war with Iran and Russia via their proxy’s. If Iran is attacking Israel because they fund Hamas and they are acting as proxy’s then the same applies here.

Melvin_2323

MoeSzys

Ukraine is exhibit 1 for what happens when you’re in a region where you MUST be able to defend yourself but you don’t have nukes. Same reason Israel NEEDED them.  Iran was NEVER going to stop its pursuit of nukes. Not only was this mess inevitable, it’s likely to play out elsewhere in the future. For example, people might think Vietnam is still a third world nation but they are making gains rapidly and they have to be somewhat concerned with their regional safety… it’s just logical.

Ohnoes999

Netanyahu has been wanting to do this for ages, regardless of circumstances.

Netanyahu is polling badly at home and elections will take place next year.  If snap elections were held today, Netanyahu would lose.  This may have more to do with him and Likud than with the US.

A Democratic president would have likely opposed this attack.  To the extent that a lack of support would have deterred Israel, the attack may have been less likely to take place if Trump was not there.  Regardless, Netanyahu is hungry for conflict and doesn't seem to care what the US thinks much of the time.

Dots to connect:

* It is clear that Netanyahu wants US help.
* It is no secret that Trump gets his knowledge of the world from Fox News.
* Netanyahu has a long standing connection with the Murdochs.
* Fox News is carrying the water for Netanyahu.
* Trump is having many defeats of his own on his home front.
* Trump's public rhetoric suggests that he thinks that Iran provides him with an opportunity for an easy win.

(This is what happens when you have dim bulbs in the White House.)

I405CA

Netanyahu has been pushing for war with Iran for over a decade. He's been claiming Iran has been weeks or at most months away from obtaining a nuclear weapon since 2012. He did everything he could to sabotage the Iran deal that was made with the US, UK, China, Russia, and France. 

Now Netanyahu has attacked Iran and is begging the US to join in the war.

Would this have happened if the Iran deal was still in effect? Probably, although the US would not be so eager to attack Iran if they were adhering to the deal. Netanyahu had already ordered attacks on Iran and the IDF said that was illegal. Since the Hamas terrorist attack the IDF was caught napping and now they are all in on the attack on Iran.

I think it would be a massive mistake for the US to join in the attack and a total disaster if American boots are put on the ground to fight Iran. Israel cannot fight Iran alone, Iran is twice the size of Texas with 90 million people. Israel cannot invade and conquer Iran. It would be foolish if the US was pulled into the war.

billpalto

This war came amount because Iran attacked Israel with terrorist groups for decades and now those terrorist groups are crippled, the scientists and the nuclear sites were just the opening target because duh but Israel wants to ensure Iran isn't in a position to support the proxy terrorist groups in the future. 

The reason it didn't happen sooner is just logistics, Israel never had a clear path to attack Iran until now, now that all the terrorists in the region have lost military capability and Syria has collapsed. Oct 7 lead to this war not pulling out of the nuclear deal that Iran wasn't following anyways.

FuturelessSociety

No.  I don’t think it would.  Trump ruins everything.

TeeVaPool

Not at all. The crazed right wingers have gotten their way. Now they have to believe Tulsi Gabbard is a liar or a fool. She has to be tossed aside like a piece of trash.

Ornery-Ticket834

Israel always despised the Iran deal and insisted they were violating it under our noses (never with enough evidence to actually cause anyone to act, confusingly enough).

For whatever reason, Trump seems to be following whatever instinct he has on this. And he seems to believe that regardless of the intelligence he's presented with or the lack of public evidence to his belief, that Iran is actively developing nuclear weapons. Which he doesn't want to happen, to the point he'll back Netanyahu's play on it.

So in any world that Trump entered office for the second time - even with an intact nuclear deal - no I don't think we avoid Israel opening up this conflict.

AmIRadBadOrJustSad

If we had done nothing, and continued with the Kerry - Blinken - Biden policy, one day we would have awoken to a nuclear powered Iran. Either by their testing or by a mushroom cloud in an area they don’t like. 

They were refining uranium to 60%.  There is no other purpose for that other developing a bomb. They have continues this throughout the Biden administration.  Actions signal intent. They had no intention of stopping and here we are. 

I take Death to America very seriously. 

Our response must be “You first!”  If it is hyperbole for domestic consumption, too bad. They chose poorly. 

I think regime change is warranted.  4 and 1/2 decades of Iran sponsored terror is enough.

Plenty-Ad7628

I think there were some valid criticisms of JCPOA but I don't think most critics of it were actually serious about replacing it with something that was realistic. They basically wanted to maintain sanctions in order to stifle Iran's support of its proxy groups and to *also* get rid of Iran's nuclear program. They may or may not have realized it at the time but that golden bullet "solution" they were referring to was war. The war we are seeing right now became inevitable once Trump unilaterally scrapped JCPOA.

Trump promised to replace it with a "better deal" as he does but Iran has no reason to think the US will uphold its end any more that we did after the first deal. If they scrap their nuclear program the US can just slap sanctions on them again right afterwards, that solution is no longer tenable

Sanctions didn't prevent Iran from arming its proxies, they didn't prevent October 7th, they didn't prevent Houthi attacks in the Red Sea. I would argue that lifting sanctions would have given Iran something big to lose, a taste of economic success and the power which comes with that. Would they still have enabled October 7th had JCPOA remained in place? Hard to say for sure but I don't think so.

I don't think Iran wants to become the next North Korea but if we insist on treating them like North Korea no matter what they do then it isn't leaving them a lot of options

DarthPineapple5

The deal okayed Iran to do everything but enrich uranium, there was a sunset clause for that too. What it means is that they kept all their nuclear expertise, build all the facilities, build all the ballistics, launchers, and trigger devices. The minute Trump pulled out, the first thing they did was violate the agreement and enrich uranium. Not to mention removing sanctions to fund their terrorist activities.


The deal was a naive attempt at kicking the can down the road.

kappacop

Anything Obama did must be eradicated. Iran’s nuclear deal, Paris Climate Accord, Virus rapid response team, Obamacare etc.

robembe

If we were still part of the deal, we could use Iran's violations as reasonable justification. Congress might have actually backed Trump.

Now, Israel went ahead and attacked first, so now Trump is backed into a corner between Israel, Iran and Russia and he's still trying to look like he's in charge. He's panicking and going to push the middle east into a war.

[deleted]

Constant-Spite-2018

Ohhhhh, I totally forgot about the “giving money to Iran” aspect of the right’s bad-faith engagement on this particular topic. I remember thinking that it was only part of the argument because “they aren’t complying anyway” was such a weak position on its own.

Because sure, maybe Iran wasn’t complying. But the deal that Trump (ahem) nuked at least provided for a mechanism to try monitoring compliance. I know Trump and his zealots aren’t capable of understanding that international policy rarely has any total victories making it painstaking, requiring of compromise, and the ability truly negotiate. But this situation is a case study in why that method is superior to the wannabe strongman shit that Trump prefers.

So, no. The current iteration of hostilities between Iran and Israel wouldn’t be happening if for no other reason than Bibi’s claims about Iran’s nuclear program would’ve been a lot harder argue.

That said, as so many things within Trump’s orbit, his presence is a compounding factor. Aside from his unilateral withdrawal from JCPOA, he has helped facilitate a world where the effectiveness of a lie/truth is proportional to the force with which it is told and the individual’s willingness to double down in any circumstance. So even if Trump hadn’t killed the deal, his mere presence in the single most powerful elected office in the world means I think we’re still dealing with a post-truth society where someone like Bibi could have manufactured a pretense to strike as long as he was willing to stay the course, consequences be damned.

HoppyPhantom

I think it’s important to realize that Iran is not governed by peace-loving people who just want to get along and feel secure in the world. It’s like the Russians under Putin claiming they just want to feel secure as they invade one neighbor after another.

Iran is an expansionist religious dictatorship that wants to establish a caliphate over the Middle East and ultimately the world. They want control and conquest, not survival.

The “west” has a bad habit of assuming that peace and prosperity motivate everyone. The Iranian regime is happy to sign empty papers and tell the west what they want to hear. But its core goals haven’t changed. As long as the core regime remains, they use diplomacy to gain advantage, not to seek peaceful coexistence. Just like Putin.

Dunfalach

The US gave 6 billion dollars to Iran for humanitarian purposes in September 2023.  2 weeks later, Iran orchestrated the largest terrorist attack on Israel, ever.  Why are people arguing that the US should do anything whatsoever for Iran?

Legitimate-Dinner470

Yes, only the US pulled out of the deal and they still had audits after. The deal ends in October of this year. The deal is the reason they are where they are at now.

JCPOA was originally agreed upon in 2015 by Iran, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union.

Fattyman2020

No, this happened because Israel decided to attack Iran unprovoked.  The whole thing about Iran having nukes is something that u.s. war leaders and their media mouthpieces are inventing to justify continued support for Israel's war against iran and to justify u.s. aggression toward Iran.  It is classic "manufacturing consent."

Of course, even if Iran were developing nukes or had them already, it still would not have been ok for Israel to attack them and it would not be ok for the u.s. to go to war with the.

JadeHarley0

This comment section is absolutely bonkers.

KGrizzle88

Netanyahu was the largest critic of the JCPOA in 2015 and has been complaining ever since about enrichment levels. They’re would have been no reason for him to attack if the deal was in place, now innocent people are being killed in both countries.

Iran was going to buy jets from Boeing and residents were angry that the Ayatollah wasn’t doing more to bring back the country. Got Ben time there could have been real change.

There was absolutely no upside to tearing up that agreement that was in place, none. But here we are almost 10 years later with Trump asking for an agreement that he destroyed. The first agreement took years and hard work between multiple countries, it had inspectors from the IAEA. Does Trump have the slightest idea how he would accomplish this, it’s not like he has much expert talent in his cabinet outside of Rubio.

Anxious_Claim_5817

This has been happening since I was a toddler in the 1970s. Factually, even before that, we overthrew the Shah in the 1950s if memory serves.

"Bomb Bomb Iran" was a hit song, a parody of "Barbara Ann" that they would often play on the radio in the 80s.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8hEtI9AI0U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8hEtI9AI0U)

I don't even know how many times Israel has bombed Iran... a lot, safe to say.

No end in sight.

I don't think Iran will ever stop trying to obtain nuclear weapons, they'd be silly not to (see Ukraine)

TK-369

No but they would already be enriching uranium behind everyones back. They weren't letting investigators in.

TheMedMan123

War was imminent the moment he ran. I still don’t understand how people think they can rationalize his latest horrific and illegal act as the one that pushed us here. It was the point the whole time.

grrlgottaeat

The biggest lie about the JCPOA was that it was supposed to stop a bomb:  
[https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/why-iran-deal-matters](https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/why-iran-deal-matters)

If Trump did not pull out of the JCPOA and did not bomb Iran, the outcome would have been so so much worse. You cannot negotiate away evil.

HumbleEngineering315

Probably, thought it likely would have longer to get to this point. Iran isn’t a government that can be appeased. As ill-suited as Trump’s tactics are for the vast majority of intentional relationship, it is the best way to handle a country that has been trying to nuke us for decades. Iran isn’t a government that can be appeased and wants to wipe us and 9 million Jews of the face of the earth

atamicbomb

I'm not sure you can call what is going on now a "war". Israel is conducting some of the most targeted strikes in history to cripple Iran's nuclear program with incredibly minimal risk to themselves and incredibly low collateral damage. To answer your question, no, if Kamala won the election our allies would have no confidence at all in US support and would not be able to act to preserve their own survival in the manner they are today. Thankfully she lost and terrorists and those funding them are paying the price instead.

StoicNaps

Trump has possibly a religious obsession with Israel that I don't understand. I think it's his Achilles heel.


We will never know because it may take longer than we will be alive to find out if what he has done (pulling out of the deal, the present stance on Iran) was and is the correct thing to do.


What politicians do is look back on history and project that upon us to gain our approval. It's the typical "if only we had done.... At the time, then X wouldn't have happened". It creates that wedge of doubt in our minds.


Personally, his obsession and most politicians obsession with Israel is frightening. No one country should ever take over our discourse as Israel has done. We act like a vassal of Israel.


We have a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. Just think of all the money we will now have to give Israel for rebuilding and defense. Imagine if that money went into social programs or was given to our poorer states to help their people.


I'm getting off topic. I don't support any one political party so I will end it here. 

atticus-fetch

The Obama nuclear deal you're wanting to trust the deal from the guy who literally destroyed the middle east in terms of stability by causing the overthrow of Syria Libya Egypt Jordan led to the rise of ISIS and couldn't even figure out how to fight them.  

Oh hell no from my house.  Obama was a walking clusterfuck in terms of the middle east.

ironeagle2006

Dry_Archer_7959

Iran never had an incentive to stop weapons development. The Obama deal was written by fools. All the benefits upfront in exchange for a pinky promise and some cursory inspections of a few sites. 

Iran sits on a sea of oil. It has no need at all to develop nuclear energy. Even If it did, it could buy approved amounts of enriched uranium and not run its own questionable enrichment program. It does not need the ability to do this itself and it allows for production beyond what they would need for a “reactor”.

No, Iran’s current leadership is not and has not been trustworthy. They have stated numerous times, in no uncertain terms, that their goal is the destruction of Israel. To blindly accept the “nothing to see here” statements from the people who chant “death to America” is dangerously ignorant. 

There is no doubt they are desperately pursuing nukes. If they had nuclear capabilities, I have no doubt they’d deploy them against Israel. 

If the terrible Obama deal had been left in place, we would be headed to nuclear war.

d2r_freak

Framing Trump’s position as just spiting Obama is silly.

It’s kind of important to note that the two entities that warned against the Iran nuclear deal were our two closest allies in the region: Israel and Saudi Arabia. Both had warned the deal was insufficient for security and Iran was a bad faith actor.

Immediately after sanctions under Obama were lifted, Iran increased its funding to proxy terror groups - Hamas / Hezbollah &amp; Houthi rebels, as well as heavy involvement in the Syrian civil war.

Obama offered some variant of “yeah well they were already funding terrorists so whatever, the choice is nuclear or non nuclear”.

The Iranian nuclear deal had super weak enforcement - military sites were off limits, inspections could be delayed by 24 days, and major restrictions on enrichment had expiration dates ranging from 8 to 15 years.

It looked like Iran basically accepted a few years delay in its nuclear program (but not abandonment) and just immediately went to power projection through funding terror and conventional war… which it was able to do with a stronger / less sanctioned economy.

The hope that Iran would change and kind of join the rest of the western aligned world with better economic conditions seemed to be hope, not strategy… there’s not much evidence it would have actually worked.

It’s somewhat unlikely that we would have seen the cracks in Ayatollah control over the country if Trump hadn’t pulled out and put sanctions back. The 2022 youth uprising was a signal of growing internal dissent and frustration with the regime that probably wouldn’t have existed otherwise.

If the nuclear deal stayed in place you would have had a more economically powerful Iran approaching the end of enrichment bans right now, ready to fast track whatever it was doing in secrecy for the previous years while funding terrorists.

Kman17

Besides, the reason stated in the question, there was another reason that Trump pulled out of the deal, because of the sunset clause:

After 15 years, all limits on enrichment would be removed, including limits on the type and number of centrifuges, Iran's stocks of enriched uranium, and enrichment sites. According to Belfer, at this point Iran could "expand its nuclear program to create more practical overt and covert nuclear weapons options. 

The deal never prevented I ran from developing nuclear weapons in the long-term. It is the general consensus for most civilized countries that Iran cannot obtain nuclear weapons.

joesnowblade

The JCPOA was really only designed to delay not end Iran’s Nuclear program. 

The main problem was “undeclared” sites. There is overwhelming proof Iran was hiding sites and not being fully transparent.

While the US probably should have just slapped the sanctions on rather than nerf the JCPOA by leaving it, in the grand scheme of things it was pretty pointless anyways. It was never designed to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, only delay it. 

I think what is more effecting why this is happening is the Global hate against Isreal. Not saying they are innocent in any way but there is a huge push to legitimize the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah and some seemingly incompetent people are giving them a platform.  This antisemitism has given Iran the opportunity to act out and advance greatly. 

Now if the US destroys Fordow that will set them back decades and be far more effective in preventing them getting nukes than any accord or deal.

randompossum

If we were on the original Obama plan Iran would already have nukes and we would likely have experienced some nuclear holocaust.

In what way was the Iran deal good for anyone but Iran?

Pattonator70

 The Guardian is an extreme left wing media. They continue to leave out important information to make sure their bias is what their audience sees.

I straight up don't believe that deal did anything meaningful to stop nuclear weapons production. It was a feel good measure but it gave them advanced notice of inspections and time to hide anything they were doing that was unacceptable all while making it far easier for them to get what they needed to eventually have a nuclear weapon.

I don't agree with the strike by Isreal and I don't want a war with Iran. Having said that the last thing this planet needs is a nuclear capable Iran.

Wraith-723

The deal wasn’t worth the paper it was written on and Iran wasn’t living up to it anyway.  They were and still would be enriching uranium well past allowable limits.  

The only thing that would have prevented this is allowing them to make nukes and to use them at free will.

RiverCityWoodwork

Yes.  The JCPOA had a sunset of 10 years and no provisions to actually stop anything.  It was a 10 year pause to kick the can down the road.

Affectionate-Bite109

Well this wasn't on my bingo card. The left defending Iran. Insanity.

harley97797997

Yes, because Iran cheated on the agreement from the beginning and Biden and Obama both gave Iran billions of dollars to boot.

CapeMOGuy

Iran literally never followed the nuclear deal to begin with, so why are we all acting like it was anything substantial to pull out of it?

Rhomya

Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).


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

AutoModerator

Probably not given the circumstances, but it may not have mattered longterm anyway.

Interesting-Gear-392


Attacking them is worthless and there should be a no sanction approach cause Iran has suffered a lot of betrayal from US and US-Israel backed proxies like ISIS, Al Qaeda and Iraqi militias has caused grave harm to them. US funded an 8 year war to destabilize Iran but it made the regime stronger than ever.

Iran always said they don’t want nukes, they enriched to 60% because they want the US to lay back on sanctions as a negotiating tactic.

Iran didn’t backstab and kill Israeli or American generals and chiefs or scientists.

Israel did that, US did that. Trump killed Qasem soleimani when he came to Baghdad for negotiations. Why did he do that? How can you expect countries to negotiate when US deals in bad faith. Just currently, America’s rogue dog couldn’t keep his leash on and attacked Iran UNPROVOKED when there was negotiations on Sunday in Oman. Israel killed 80+ Civilians the first strike, killed members of Leadership without any goddamn reason.

If I were the leader of Iran I’d have built that bomb and I’d have told America to go fuck off. And this is coming from an American.

Just right now, there’s B2-Bomber spotted in Israel. So imagine you’re entering Iran territory with your stealth fighter to bomb the shit out of their facilities. America has no right to do that.

Diplomacy was always going strong until Trump did crazy shit.

I REPEAT, If Pakistan could have Nukes, IRAN COULD ALSO GET NUKES IF THEY WANTED. BUT THEY DONT. It’s against “SHIA Islamic” belief system. Khamenei needs to give out a Fatwa in order for them to build it as they consider nukes as Destroyer of human race and its “Haram”

sabotroned

I guess it depends on if you believe Iran was going to follow their side of things.

revengeappendage

Iran wasn't doing their part anyway which means the whole agreement was pointless anyways.

[Atomic watchdog says Iran not complying with nuclear safeguards](https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164291)

[Lack of cooperation from Iran hampers nuclear checks, says atomic energy watchdog](https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164166) 

The point is they were never playing by the rules. If they agreed it was all lip service.

GreatSoulLord

&gt;with some estimates suggesting it has enough highly enriched uranium to produce multiple nuclear explosive devices

Where are these estimates and by who exactly?

You mention as a “key provision” that the deal included monitoring by the IAEA, but we handicapped them so heavily they may as well not have bothered going to Iran anyways. 

We ended up conceding on “anywhere, anytime” access for IAEA and being restricted to “declared” nuclear sites, with Iran having right of refusal for other sites. 

Without anywhere anytime access, there was no reason to even make the deal. Of course the IAEA was going to certify Iran’s compliance, as Iran would just not declare the actual enrichment sites and comply at the declared enrichment sites. We basically gave sanctions breaks and got nothing in return.

jayzfanacc

The heart of the problem is that the agreement needed to be a treaty, but such a treaty would never have been ratified by the Senate.  

That was a severe constitutional defect.  The executive branch can negotiate treaties, it cannot enter into them unilaterally.  

I also think it was remarkably foolish given just how unpopular the treaty would have been with congress and how few votes it would have garnered in the Senate.  

You seem to have also asked about the content of the agreement, whether that seemed beneficial for the US in general, unrelated to problems with the constitutional process.  

My opinion is it seemed fine.  Any nation with a functional nuclear energy industry also has a functional pipeline to nuclear bomb production.  It's almost like how any country which can make chemical fertilizer can also make mustard gas.  Same physics and same chemistry, respectfully.  The only realistic goal was to get Iran on board with having the capability but not exercising it, the way Japan, Italy, South Korea, and many other countries have the capability but do not exercise it.  The agreement seemed like a rational path towards that end, and, in hindsight, it's really a huge mistake that we didn't give it a shot.  

But, again, the severe constitutional flaws I think doomed it regardless of how good an idea it might have been.

rcglinsk

We gave them cash and they funded terrorist. A lesson I've learned in life is to not deal with immoral people. 

random_guy00214

You would have to be pretty naive and gullible to believe that Iran was going to abide by any of it.

worldisbraindead

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

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 has officially declared the end of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a nuclear agreement aimed at limiting its nuclear program.

Iran Nuclear Deal Termination

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want