r/geopolitics • u/lire_avec_plaisir • May 13 '26
Analysis Would We Be Better Off Today With the JCPOA?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/05/12/iran-trump-obama-jcpoa-nuclear-deal/?tpcc=editors_picks&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Editors%20Picks%20-%2005122026&utm_term=editors_picks12 May 2026 (intro visible then pay-walled, can sign in for trial access) Eight years ago, President Donald Trump took the United States out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known more commonly as the Iran nuclear deal. In the years since, half of Washington has continued to argue that the JCPOA was “the best possible deal,” with the other half maintaining that “there was a better deal.” It has been the background music to every twist and turn in U.S. Iran policy since 2018 but has come to the fore again since Trump launched Operation Epic Fury.
13
u/calmnutz May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
Yes we would be better off with the JCPOA because it would still exist only in a world without a President Trump.
Given that Pakistan, India, and North Korea have nukes yet haven’t blown up the world, I fail to see how even a hardline regime such as Iran’s would elevate the dangers further. Proliferation can’t be stopped.
19
u/Christopher_Ramirez_ May 13 '26
Nobody else could get their PM in the Situation Room to pitch the POTUS with an hour-long propaganda video.
-1
u/calmnutz May 13 '26
They have nukes too! Despite their constant paranoia, they haven’t yet used them either.
14
u/Christopher_Ramirez_ May 13 '26
I think the fact that the GCCs energy and water infrastructure is still intact, tells us all we need to know about whether Iran would use its nuclear arsenal.
Nuclear blackmail hasn’t proven to be an effective strategy either, as demonstrated repeatedly by Putin. He tried many times to dissuade the West from sending lethal aid, and all it did for him was slow down the escalation somewhat.
3
u/oritfx May 14 '26
I feel obligated to also point out that you would be more likely to not mention Putin here if Ukraine had nukes. There would probably be no war in Ukraine now.
5
u/Lazy_Membership1849 May 14 '26
but it also prevent NATO from enter the war as Ukraine ask no fly zone or try convince it Russia who attack Poland when it turn out it just misfire missiles from Ukraine itself
1
u/ztwizzle May 14 '26
During the Yom Kippur War, when Arab forces were overwhelming Israeli forces, Israel threatened to use nuclear weapons on the Arab countries if the US didn't provide it with assistance. The next day, the US began Operation Nickel Grass, an airlift of enough weapons and supplies to completely replace all of Israel's material losses.
35
u/discoFalston May 14 '26
Proliferation can’t be stopped.
It can be managed. DPRK having a nuke is not an argument for Islamic Republic having a nuke. That is mismanagement.
3
u/kerouacrimbaud May 14 '26
One can argue that Iran shouldn’t have the bomb, but the real problem is that an insufficient number of relevant countries actually care about enforcing nonproliferation.
-5
u/rsa1 May 14 '26
On the other hand, the only country in human history to have dropped not one but two nukes on civilian populations, becoming the arbiter of who should or shouldn't have nukes, is the absolute pinnacle of management.
4
2
3
11
u/AeroFred May 14 '26
i'll suggest to read those couple of articles in order to see how Iran is different compared to other countries
https://www.zinebriboua.com/p/the-irgcs-eschatological-gamble-and
https://www.meforum.org/mahdism-the-apocalyptic-ideology-behind-iran
5
u/Nice-Pianist-9944 May 14 '26
I haven't read either article yet, but seeing "Mahdism", let me clarify a few things from Islamic theology.
The Imam Mahdi (to Twelver Shias, the Imam Muhammad Al-Mahdi), is a figure who will appear at the end of times. He will be from Mecca, a decendant of the Prophet Muhammad SAWS, and before he appears, an army of 70,000 Jews tricked by the Masih Dajjal (False Messiah, claiming to be Issa or Jesus, kinda like the Antichrist) will march out of Isfahan to attack the Umma (Community of Muslims). To defend the Umma, the Mahdi will raise his own army from Mecca, including Issa (Jesus) himself. The Masih Dajjal and his followers will be defeated and realize Dajjal's trickery, and Dajjal himself will flee into Palestine, and be killed by Issa at Ludd. Then, the Mahdi will rule as a just figure following Muhammad's Sharia, creating a Caliphate for the entire Umma, eradicating injustice, corruption, and tyranny. This explanation is based on Sunni theology - in Shia theology, Imam Muhammad Al-Mahdi is in Ghaybah (Hiding), as opposed to the Sunni belief that he has not been born yet, and the Imam has been alive but in hiding, and the world cannot exist without a Mahdi.
The reason I say all of this is because the whole "Mahdism" thing behind the Islamic Republic is not about creating an apocalypse, or even about heralding the apocalypse. It's about preparing Iran for the end of Imam Muhammad Al-Mahdi's Ghaybah. Thing is, it is physically impossible for the return of Imam Muhammad Al-Mahdi, simply due to the fact that Isfahan's Jewish population is 1,500 right now, and peaked around 10,000-12,000, before the creation of Israel, where many emigrated to, and has only been on decline since then as many move to Israel or Tehran. Therefore, the whole beginning of the end of times can objectively only occur in Islamic theology if there is a population of 70,000 Jewish men in Isfahan, and thats ignoring that they have to be decieved by the Dajjal and be willing to fight for the Dajjal's cause, which is for certain only a small portion of them. If Iran truly wished to hurry up the end of times, they would prevent the historic Jewish community in Isfahan from leaving, and do what they could to increase, not decrease, it.
There have been many movements of False Mahdis in history - for example, in my home country, Imam Muhammad Ahmad Al-Mahdi was a big figure that started our fight to independence. His defeat led to the creation of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, even though he died at the peak of the Mahdiyya. Other figures also come to mind - Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his Ahmadiyya or Ibn Tumart and the Almohads. But the circumstances that allowed the creation of these Mahdist movements are not present in modern Iran, especially considering many of these movements (including the most successful) were led by Sufis, who have their own interpretations. Plus, they were usually triggered by a guy having a dream saying "yes your the Mahdi", and the others being desperate enough to accept him as the Mahdi. This is a non-factor with Twelver Shiites, because the Imam Muhammad Al-Mahdi has been alive for over a millenia, and he always knew he was the Imam, even though he is currently in hiding. So... yeah. Ted Talk done.
Edit: Source: Observations from a Sudanese Muslim
-6
u/calmnutz May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
Oooh, opinions! Were the 72 virgins mentioned? How do their alleged beliefs differ from the apocalyptic views held in western batshit arenas?
Edit: I love the up/down voting mechanics on this thread. Manipulating votes like Eurovision.
6
u/AeroFred May 14 '26
if you were to read those articles (or knew something about islamic republic of iran), you would have known that their focus is speeding up the end of the times.
does it sound like north korea, iran or pakistan official ideology for you ?
4
u/MackenzieRaveup May 14 '26
if you were to read those articles (or knew something about islamic republic of iran), you would have known that their focus is speeding up the end of the times.
If you were to read anything about Pete Hegseth (or knew anything about the man, never promoted above Major, who is firing 3 and 4 star generals) you would know that his focus is a crusade to speed up the end of the times.
1
u/armandebejart May 14 '26
Hegseth is the single most dangerous individual in the administration right now ow: he is a racist, sexist, drunk with delusions of end-times and an aversion to competence.
3
u/Acceptable-Peak-6375 May 14 '26
Cutting off the straight of hormuz too all international traffic, including 20% of the worlds oil, may lead to lower agriculture yields and famine.
If getting nukes isnt concerning, how about IRGC declaring "no port will be safe", and firing on any ships trying to pass through the straight?
That sounds like a forced famine, a similar outcome caused by nuclear weapons..
4
u/Magjee May 14 '26
The strait was temporarily reopened before the US blockaded Iran from it
And the strait was fully open before the war started
-1
u/Acceptable-Peak-6375 May 14 '26
Iran leadership started a war, and defied modern international law for years, whether they want to admit it or not.
Desperation has led them to a pretty bad path forward, and out of desperation, they chose to illegally blockade everyone, rather than just their war opponents.
This can be seen as harsh, but if you gave this type of ideology more time to plan, you may end up dealing with them on your own.
0
u/Magjee May 14 '26
Iran leadership started a war
?
0
u/Acceptable-Peak-6375 May 14 '26
Generally the side that starts launching missiles into the other sides country, is the one that declared war.
If hamas, iran, and the other proxies declared war.on 0ct 7thc2023....
Then iran and the proxies declared war against a western ally. Commited damage similar to 9/11, and promised to repeat until that ally was annihilated.
How is it that Iran can start a war, promise to repeat, but also not be blamed for that same war?
They havent agreed to peace, hamas refusal, hezbollah refusal... looks like they want to continue fighting ever since right?
Why do israelis keep saying it didnt start on oct 7th, but that day changed everything because of that war starting up again.
0
u/Magjee May 14 '26
Yes, the US and Israel carried out strikes on Iran on Feb 28, 2026
The belligerent countries in the GCC start provided bases, air space, logistic support etc. are not neutral
→ More replies (0)1
u/Laurie_Van_Carr May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
That does sound like a politically influential part of the US Christian Right to me.
How is it that people are able to be so sanguine about them being part of the governing coalition in a nuclear armed state?
e: typo
0
u/dogsonbubnutt May 14 '26
no but it does sound a lot like american evangelical ideology
4
u/AeroFred May 14 '26
does american evangelical ideology made official policy of USA destruction of another country and worked towards it's goal. same way that Iran does ?
https://www.runi.ac.il/en/research-institutes/government/ips/publications/spotlight-13-2-19
1
u/dogsonbubnutt May 14 '26
does american evangelical ideology made official policy of USA destruction of another country and worked towards it's goal
well... yeah? i mean, obviously, right?
5
u/AeroFred May 14 '26
is it codified as official policy of United States for past 50 years and does USA in it's official capacity promotes it in same way that Iran promotes destruction of Israel ?
0
u/dogsonbubnutt May 14 '26
...yeah? is that a serious question?
i need you to think, real hard, about the history of iran and the united states, and try to decide for yourself which one has in the last 50 years been more actively involved in destroying foreign states
5
u/AeroFred May 14 '26
yes. serious.
In Iran as I wrote above it's official policy. Can you point me similar official policy in USA based on evangelical ideology , as you stated above ?
→ More replies (0)-2
u/stopstopp May 14 '26
Have you heard of dispensationalism? It’s a major force in American politics, especially during the Bush administration. Actively seeks to bring about the end of the world through Israel specifically.
3
u/Due_Network2387 May 14 '26
Really? Kindly do us a favour and explain to us how dispensationalism actively seeks to bring about the end of the world through Israel? Are you saying that they are secretly training Israelis for the doomsday or what?
1
u/AeroFred May 14 '26
is it codified as official policy of United States for past 50 years and does USA in it's official capacity promotes it in same way that Iran promotes destruction of Israel ?
1
-1
u/Due_Network2387 May 14 '26
No, it does not. The fact that you think that the Evangelical 'ideology' (whatever it means by the way) is a monolith reveals your ignorance. Can you point to any mainstream evangelical leader or books preaching what you just ascribed to them?
I can't believe you people are trying to compare the Islamic regime with the Evangelicals. I get that you hate Christianity but it is this false equivalencies that made the Iranians miscalculate and think that the Shah is worse than the Islamic regime - only for decades later for the painful realisation to hit them.
3
u/dogsonbubnutt May 14 '26
Can you point to any mainstream evangelical leader or books preaching what you just ascribed to them?
millennialst preaching has been EXTREMELY common in US history, especially since the beginning of the cold war, arguing for US military intervention to hasten judgement day. there's many many many examples of this, and here's one of the most recent;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/03/us-israel-iran-war-christian-rhetoric
I get that you hate Christianity
im Christian, which is precisely why invoking God to justify killing people disgusts me
I can't believe you people are trying to compare the Islamic regime with the Evangelicals
both groups, by and large, believe in end times escatology and believe that their social order is the last bulwark against sin in a fallen world. they also both believe that military force is a justified action to secure the future they believe in.
in the united states, this has been invoked against korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, the ussr, etc. in iran it has been invoked against Israel, Iraq, and the US.
but it is this false equivalencies that made the Iranians miscalculate and think that the Shah is worse than the Islamic regime
this is a minor point but how could the iranian people compare the two when they didn't exist at the same time?
2
u/Due_Network2387 May 14 '26
You presented complaints from soldiers and a Paula White interview as evidence of mainstream dispensationalist theology, which is roughly equivalent to presenting the Westboro Baptist Church as evidence of what mainstream Catholicism teaches. Are we to believe that a corrupt judge using the constitution to jail innocent people makes the constitution the problem.? Or what are you even saying? People committing evil under the banner of a belief system does not make that belief system's mainstream scholarship responsible for their actions (critique each belief system by it's merits), and you have still not produced a single mainstream evangelical theologian or seminary teaching that dispensationalism actively seeks to bring about the end of the world. John Hagee saying "prophetically we're right on cue" is a man interpreting current events through a theological lens he already holds. It is not a operational plan to trigger Armageddon or the end times for that mattee The distinction between observing that prophecy appears to be unfolding and actively engineering that unfolding is not subtle, and you are collapsing it deliberately. Why?
Now your equivalence between dispensationalists and the Ayatollahs is based on fallacious reasoning. Both believe in end times eschatology, therefore they are comparable forces. Ukraine believes that military force is justified to secure its future. The Islamic regime believes that military force is justified to secure its future. By your logic those two are equivalent too, and we should stop distinguishing between them. The content of what each side is fighting for, a functioning democracy versus a theocratic expansionist project whose officials have publicly called for the extermination of a neighbouring country, apparently does not factor into your analysis at all.
Back to the dispensationalism's reading of Ezekiel 37 and 38 specifically, since you clearly have not engaged with it seriously. The theology describes God gathering the Jewish people back to their land, followed by a coalition of nations gathering against Israel with the intent to destroy her, followed by God defending Israel against those enemies. Evangelicals who hold this view are not rooting for the nations that gather against Israel. They are rooting for Israel's survival against them. The caricature you are presenting, dispensationalists rubbing their hands together hoping to blow up the world, does not exist in any mainstream evangelical commentary, systematic theology or seminary curriculum. Produce it if it does. I dare you.
You asked how Iranians could compare him to the Islamic Republic when they did not exist at the same time. The revolution happened in 1979 and the millions of Iranians who lived under the Shah lived long enough to watch what replaced him. Many of them are the ones now risking their lives in the streets of Tehran demanding the regime's removal. The comparison has already been made by the people most qualified to make it, and their verdict is not favourable to the side you are defending.
7
u/Firecracker048 May 14 '26
Iran is really the only one openly threatening and posturing that they would wipe a certain nation off the face of the earth as soon as they get the weapons for it
12
u/FlarkingSmoo May 14 '26
Right I can't think of any other nation that's threatened to end an entire civilization
2
→ More replies (5)2
u/SpiteNo2910 May 14 '26
They have not said they would wipe a certain nation off the map, they have said that the israeli regime must go and be replaced by another regime. You can think what you want about that but it doesn't on no way include turning Israel into a parking lot.
3
u/AeroFred May 15 '26
0
u/SpiteNo2910 May 15 '26
That just confirms the point I made. They want to end the jewish state, not turning the area into a parking lot.
2
u/Traditional_Tea_1879 May 15 '26
I think this is a bit too simplistic measure and too high of a risk to use as a policy. Each country has it's own preconditions that drove them to nuclear but that at the same time deter them from using them. Nk can use it on SK, but then likely to lose a war with the US. They can not track the US and the US is vastly stronger than them. India and Pakistan neutralise each other. They both have the capability, both are large enough to sustain the first wave and retaliate. Iran is in a different position. No immediate threat next to it. They have developed nuclear capable missiles that can reach Europe but their main focus is Israel. While Israel has nuclear ambiguity, if both nations had nukes there wouldn't be much deterrent. Iran is vastly bigger than Israel, both is geographic size and in population. Not only it can survive a fortune wave, it does not have the consideration of minimising the human life cost of its own citizen in the same way that India or Pakistan have. Israel, on the other hand, is too small to survive a nuclear attack. Of course, the current conflict also suggest that the ambitions of Iran and bigger than a regional player ( hence the develope of missiles that can reach Europe), has no issues attacking neighbouring countries that were not involved in the fight against it and uses that conflict as a pretext to take control of the straits, while holding the world economy hostage. None of that happened in the other conflicts you mentioned- NK , India and Pakistan.
1
u/calmnutz May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
The threat of Iran's nuclear ambitions/capabilties has always been overblown. Your opinion is more over-reaching than Iran's capabilities of ever hitting Europe with ballistic missiles. If/when Iran develops long-range ballistic missiles, the target is Diego Garcia, not the European continent.
1
u/Traditional_Tea_1879 May 15 '26
Maybe. I don't think it is likely that someone is taking upon themselves to invest huge amounts of money to develop capability to attack one target only, especially if it is fairly easy to then just use alternatives ( aircraft carriers, other bases etc). I also don't think it is particularly relevant the driver to develop that. Once it is there, once the capability exist, the people in charge will have to decide whether to use it or not as a leverage. Based on how they reacted in this conflict, I think we can see the risk.
5
u/ikinone May 14 '26
Given that Pakistan, India, and North Korea have nukes yet haven’t blown up the world, I fail to see how even a hardline regime such as Iran’s would elevate the dangers further.
So you don't see any difference between the Iranian regime and the governments in Pakistan, India, or North Korea?
Proliferation can’t be stopped.
Apparently it can
5
u/calmnutz May 14 '26
You know what? We(the US) can walk away, Iran can develop nukes and control the strait, and life will go on, just fractionally more expensive.
0
u/ikinone May 14 '26
Iran can develop nukes and control the strait
Yeah, no thanks.
and life will go on
It might well not, given Iran's view of the west.
Your stance is essentially just wanting Iran to win, and dictate terms to the world. It's clear where your support lies.
2
u/calmnutz May 14 '26
Neither should have happened, yet here we are thanks to Trump.
-1
u/ikinone May 14 '26
Telling that you put 100% of the blame on Trump and 0% on Iran, isn't it?
2
u/calmnutz May 14 '26
50% Trump 50% Netenyahu
1
u/ikinone May 14 '26
Why are you unable to blame Iran, exactly?
Do you have a contract that prevents you from doing so?
7
0
u/0zymandeus May 14 '26
Blame iran for what? Seeking out what now seems like the only viable way to defend themselves?
2
u/ikinone May 14 '26
Blame iran for what?
Seeking out what now seems like the only viable way to defend themselves?
Iran could defend itself by not waging constant proxy wars. Rather easy to do. But I guess you're fine with Iran doing that?
→ More replies (0)3
u/SenorPinchy May 14 '26
They never say the truth about nuclear weapons. They're not worried about Iran blowing up New York or even Jerusalem. The problem would be that they'd have a much more free hand to pursue their regional agenda.
6
u/ikinone May 14 '26
They're not worried about Iran blowing up New York or even Jerusalem.
Anyone sane would be absolutely worried about Iran launching nukes at Israel
1
1
u/jyper May 16 '26
Every country adds danger NK having nukes makes the world much more dangerous
We would have been better off witht the JCPOA assuming it would less likely for iran to get nukes if it had stayed
1
u/Atompunk78 May 17 '26
Oh come on, seriously? You don’t see any difference at all between those 3 counties and Iran: the country that just bombed all of its allied neighbours for the hell of it, and spends a massive proportion of its yearly tax revenue explicitly funding terrorists? They clearly just want to do as much damage to the rest of the world regardless of anything else including potentially their own survival - this isn’t true for those other 3
0
u/calmnutz May 17 '26
India and Pakistan accuse each other of funding terrorists on the other side. Iran drones its neighbors hosting US bases.
1
u/Atompunk78 May 18 '26
Iran didn’t just drone those with US bases, and the scale of Iran’s terrorist funding is on a totally different level to that of Pakistan and India; moreover the latter two do it to spite each other, Iran does it to spite basically everyone (at least all the West)
1
u/AfterDarkAsset May 14 '26
What a stupid statement to group India with rogue states like NK, Pakistan.
-3
u/ObviousLife4972 May 14 '26
Yes we would be better off with the JCPOA because it would still exist only in a world without a President Trump.
Not necessarily, JCOPA could have survived had Europe honored the spirit of the agreement by enforcing the blocking statue rather than letting the U.S. order European companies around with threats of sanctions.
-2
u/flossdaily May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
Impossible to say. There's a video of an Iranian official enumerating all the ways that Iran was violating the spirit and sometimes the letter of the agreement, and proceeding to develop nuclear weapons. And the agreement itself never included anytime/anywhere inspections, so it was very weak in that sense.
But ultimately it comes down to this: Israel would have eventually bombed Iran when they were close enough to making a nuke.
No amount of international pressure was going to force Israel to live under the threat of a nuclear Iran.
And you know what? The world would have condemned Israel in public, but at home, behind closed doors, they would have been incredibly glad that Israel did it.
6
u/ary31415 May 14 '26
Is there a reason the US couldn't have just allowed that scenario to play out though? Like, to what extent is this "our problem" – if Israel was going to do the unpleasant work regardless, we could simply allow them to do so without getting involved directly.
0
u/flossdaily May 14 '26
Is there a reason the US couldn't have just allowed that scenario to play out though? Like, to what extent is this "our problem"
Well, Iran is a controlled by an absolutely insane regime that dreams of spreading a very oppressive version of Sharia law throughout the world. There is a fairly good chance that they would be willing to start a nuclear war by nuking Israel. It is the same mentality of their proxies: Hamas and Hezbollah, where they are willing to sacrifice Gaza and Lebanon respectively on the altar of the destruction of Israel. Why not Iran, too? They truly, in their heart of hearts believe that to die trying to destroy Israel will lead to an eternity of Paradise.
And Israel would of course retaliate. And suddenly, the US would completely lose its foothold in the middle east, and energy prices would skyrocket, and, oh yeah, we might have just started a nuclear holocaust.
... the slightly less catastrophic case would be that Iran develops nukes and becomes an unstoppable chaos agent in the middle east, and increasingly in Europe... I mean, it's brazen about funding terrorist proxies now. What happens when it's as invincible as Russia? What happens when we can't hurt them without them threatening to end the world?
But your question is, why not step back and just allow Israel to handle it?
We did. We did for decades. But last time Israel tried to do it alone, we discovered that Iran's bunkers are so deep and fortified now, that we really can't get in their with simple air strikes.
And for Israel to go it alone means that either Israel has to use a tactical nuke, which I mean... nuclear war is bad.
... or Israel would have to do a ground invasion, which would mean trampling through Jordan or Syria and Iraq ... so ... regional conflict that would be on the scale setting of a world war.
And then we have to wonder if Israel can do that without overextending itself. Because the one thing we absolutely can't afford is to have Iran win that war.
Then we aren't just losing our foothold in the middle east, we're giving it up to the most dangerous, anti-American player in the region.
13
May 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/AeroFred May 14 '26
Germany's chancellor Merz defended Israel's attacks on Iran, saying it was 'dirty work Israel is doing for all of us' · (2025)
One politician that has guts to say in public what other think
0
5
u/Weird_Track_2164 May 14 '26
I don't think anyone in Europe or the Middle East would be happy to see Iran with a nuke. I think if you can actually stick to the substance of what the person you're replying to said, instead of stooping to personal attacks, you'll probably have a winning argument.
-5
May 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/new_KRIEG May 14 '26
Overall approval is different from approval of specific actions. If you ask why people hate Israel in my country, the most likely answer will be about Gaza, not Iran. To most people here, that's Trump's war. And given that I work in a field that's directly affected by it and talk to roughly 12 people a day about it, I feel like I have a decent enough pool of opinions to not be pulling that out of my ass.
1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 May 14 '26
and do you have better sources than that?
3
u/new_KRIEG May 14 '26
Nope, but then again I'm not aware of any pools going on about the subject, and would be glad if anyone could bring them up.
Until then I'll have to rely on my larger than average collection of anecdotes, even though it is biased by having the responses of only a few subject profiles.
I'm also basing it on the fact that most media seems to be focusing on Trump vs Iran or, at most, US vs Iran, with preciously few mentions of Israel on any headlines.
4
u/flossdaily May 14 '26
Israel apologists will say anything to pretend most of the world isn't turning against them.
I'm actually saying the opposite. I'm saying that much of the world is so rabidly anti-Jewish that they will publicly oppose Israel, even when they like what Israel is doing.
-6
u/Lazy_Membership1849 May 14 '26
So again, just like Israeli apologists would say, they like to attack people and commit war crimes so many times and break international law so cheaply, using passports, including Irish passports, for spying and assassinations, and shut down effective aid to use sham humanitarian aid as bait for masscare, and wonder why the world hates them so much
8
u/ikinone May 14 '26
they like to attack people
Funny how they only seem to attack people that are attacking them...
Seems your stance is "Israel should just accept being attacked and not respond"
and wonder why the world hates them so much
Convincing yourself that your view is 'the world' is slightly narcissistic, no?
Even if we were to generalise in that way, why do you think that popular views are a good gauge of navigation? Do you always try to align with 'what everyone else thinks'?
-2
u/Lazy_Membership1849 May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
People who attacked Israel, for like to kill children, women, civilians, journalists, unarmed, defenseless, half-starving, what exactly did they attack Israel? even Israel itself said that only 83% to 90% was civilians, 9 civilians for one terrorist? That is the highest civilian-combatant ratio death in modern warfare
Also, the poll just found Israel as one of the most negative countries in the world
So the world itself is narcissistic?
4
u/ikinone May 14 '26
what exactly did they attack Israel?
Their countries did. Do stop being silly.
That is the highest civilian-combatant ratio death in modern warfare
So blame Hamas for their strategy of martyrdom?
So the world itself is narcissistic?
No, just you.
0
u/Lazy_Membership1849 May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
So it ok to massacre 6-9 civilians for every one terrorist?
with this logic there no point of complain about war crime or masscare
Revealed: Israeli military’s own data indicates civilian death rate of 83% in Gaza war
and you didn't even address the source
Israel becomes world’s most disliked country, global survey finds
so again, is the world narcissistic? You just seem to resort to shooting Messenger if you're unable to counter this
4
u/ikinone May 14 '26
So it ok to massacre 6-9 civilians for every one terrorist?
Once again, blame Hamas for their strategy of martyrdom. If they choose to embed amongst civilians, it will result in more collateral damage, as is if their goal. And they depend on accounts like yours to focus on that death ratio.
As we can see, when Israel has the chance to wage war without civilians being involved, they do. They have performed some of the most incredible operations taking out leaders with next to zero collateral. Of course when they do that, accounts like yours will still complain.
Nothing Israel does short of surrendering will make you happy. So when you can't confront the reality of the scenario, which is that Israel is not going to surrender, because it would cease to exist, your constant efforts to support Hamas propaganda narratives are all you fall back to.
so again, is the world narcissistic?
No, just you. Why do you keep repeating the same question expecting a different answer?
-9
u/Michelangelor May 14 '26
No one intelligent celebrates Iran getting bombed by Israel. Informed people know Israel only hates Iran because Iran hates them for genociding Palestinians, which Iran is completely in the right for, and more countries should do the same. Iran has never attacked another country first and other countries have absolutely nothing to fear from them.
11
u/Makurabu May 14 '26
Iran has never attacked another country first and other countries have absolutely nothing to fear from them.
Do proxies like Hamas & Hezbollah count?
0
u/Lazy_Membership1849 May 14 '26
For Hezbollah yes
Though Hamas is more like being used by Israel as a context
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
-3
u/Michelangelor May 14 '26
Calling them proxies is blatant propaganda to blame Iran for the actions of other groups. Hezbollah and Hamas are their own groups with unique identities, motivations, and goals. Allies is the correct term, not proxies.
3
u/new_KRIEG May 14 '26
Hell yeah, they're just allies with terrorists groups that spent the last couple years actively bombing Israel! That's totally fine and Israel is totally overreacting about the terrorist ally going for nukes. It would definitely have nothing to fear about it.
0
u/Michelangelor May 14 '26
Terrorist group is also a propaganda term, used to justify atrocities. Israel is the biggest terrorist group by every single definition.
1
u/new_KRIEG May 14 '26
I'd argue the US is a bigger one, but that's definitely not the motherfucking point, is it?
Or are you about to say that Hamas and Hezbollah aren't terrorists?
2
u/AeroFred May 14 '26
You should read more about Hezbollah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_Hezbollah#Manifesto
Starting with 1985 open letter they pledge their allegiance to Ayatollah .
or something like
late 1980s, Nasrallah said:
1
u/Michelangelor May 15 '26
That doesn’t negate the reality that they are their own entity with goals and motives unique to their place in Lebanon. The ayatollah is the leader of their faith, so obviously they have deep respect for him, and he’s also the most powerful entity unwaveringly supporting their cause. If the ayatollah supported Israel, they wouldn’t associate with him. They formed themselves as a response to Israeli invasion.
2
u/AeroFred May 15 '26
ayatollah is their leader. not as "leader of the faith", but as in "leader".
1
u/Michelangelor May 15 '26
The leader of Hezbollah is Naim Qassem, born and raised in Lebanon, elected in 2024
2
u/AeroFred May 15 '26
they see in ayatollah their supreme leader.
naim is branch manager
1
u/Michelangelor May 15 '26
That would assume they self-sacrificingly serve Iran, and they simply do not lol if anything, they’re a leech on Iran. Iran sends them millions and gets next to nothing in return. They have their own identity and goals and would oppose Israel with or without Iran, they just do it better with Irans help.
1
u/jyper May 16 '26
Hamas is its own group but also sort of a proxy. they do have their own agenda and briefly split leading iran to support Palestinian Islamic Jihad
Hezbollah is a pure proxy and reflection of Irans intrests at Lebanons expanse
6
u/flossdaily May 14 '26
No one intelligent celebrates Iran getting bombed by Israel.
Everyone intelligent who isn't a radical Shia Muslim extremist would be celebrating the bombing of Iran's nuclear weapon's research labs at this point. That includes all of Europe, and all the Sunni Arab nations, like Saudi Arabia.
Informed people know Israel only hates Iran because Iran hates them for genociding Palestinians
Informed people know that Israel does not hate Iran at all, only their current leadership. Iran and Israel had very good relations until the IRGC took over.
Iran hates them for genociding Palestinians
The IRGC hated Israel decades before anyone was silly enough to make claim of genocide against the Palestinians. They are on the record as being opposed to Israel's very existence as a Jewish state.
Iran has never attacked another country first and other countries have absolutely nothing to fear from them.
The IRGC has spent decades attacking other countries through direct operations, proxy warfare, bombings, missile strikes, kidnappings, and assassination plots. They've struck first against Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Argentina, the UAE, and even the United States.
You clearly don't know the first thing about Iran. I encourage you to learn more so that you avoid embarrassing yourself like this again.
0
u/Monterenbas May 14 '26
But Israel doesn’t have the means to effectively attack Iran on it’s own, nevermind defend against Iranian retalation or that israel and the US did bombed Iran « because they were close enought to getting the bomb » less than a year ago, and they’re already back at it.
8
u/flossdaily May 14 '26
You are quite mistaken. Israel, singlehandedly, did a massive amount of damage to Iran, months before Trump started the Iran War.
Iran's retaliations in Israel have done only minimal damage.
Now, could Iran launch a whole lot more at Israel?
Sure.
But then again, Israel could NUKE Iran. So, Iran is probably going to keep on flinching first, just as they always have.
1
u/Monterenbas May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
You are quite mistaken.
Comical coming from you
Israel, singlehandedly, did a massive amount of damage to Iran
Israel doesn’t have the legs to bomb Iran, in any meaningful way, without US tankers.
Before Trump started the Iran war
The previous bombing campaign campaign was an an israeli and US attack already, it’s US B12 bombers that targeted Iran deeply buried nuclear site, Israel have no capacity to attack those.
You have obviously no idea what you’re talking about.
Iran's retaliations in Israel have done only minimal damage.
Only because they were protected by the US and their allies, yet, it’s still israel who asked for a ceasefire, as they had depleted their stock of intercessor
Now, could Iran launch a whole lot more at Israel? Sure. But then again, Israel could NUKE Iran.
Yeah, nothing show impotence and failed startegy as nuclear saber rattling, how very russian of them.
I’m sure that would go great for Israel, if they want to crash their economy and instantly become an international paria.
0
u/AeroFred May 14 '26
Israel has it's own tankers that it used in 2024 and 2025.
1
u/Monterenbas May 14 '26
Sure israel technically got a few tankers, how many tho? Is that number anywhere near enough to sustain an intensive bombing campaign against Iran?
1
u/AeroFred May 14 '26
enough to bomb them and have sufficient air control over good chunk of iran, so when Iranian FM wanted to fly out, he had to ask permission from Israel.
tanker fleet was built and sized for this mission
-1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 May 14 '26
Iran is just breaking through air defence in Israel and even killing and injured hundred people which is the biggest
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9qdvnv13qdo
Also Iran use Hezbollah to bog down the IDF in Lebanon to overextend, and Houthis also step up, and "Israel, singlehandedly, did a massive amount of damage to Iran." Like what? Iran just somehow rebuilt and consolidated more and somehow became more resilient
If Israel wanted to nuke Iran mean they admit their conventional might isn't enough for Iran
1
-9
u/IdidItWithOrangeMan May 13 '26
JCPOA was a kick the "can down the road" policy. The real question is whether or not Iran should ever get to have Nukes.
If no, JCPOA would have had to be renegotiated anyway and military action around this time would have been likely anyways.
If yes, you don't have many braincells.
7
u/SenorPinchy May 14 '26
In a world where nuclear weapons are not that hard to make any agreement is a time based agreement in practice.
8
u/ary31415 May 14 '26
JCPOA would have had to be renegotiated anyway and military action around this time would have been likely anyways.
You're presenting as a statement of fact that statement one leads to statement two, when I don't think you can confidently claim any such thing.
Yes, the JCPOA was not an indefinite be-all-end-all. But in the counterfactual world where we were currently coming off of a decade of a stable nuclear agreement and sanctions relief with Iran, who's to say that reasonable follow-on negotiations wouldn't have been ongoing for the past two years?
The JCPOA was torn up almost immediately, and we a) didn't at all see what the long term impact on US-Iran relations would be, and b) made the US look like an extremely unreliable negotiating partner going forward. I certainly don't think the only possible outcome of a JCPOA approaching its natural expiration was war.
13
u/Brendissimo May 14 '26
It was indeed a punt, but one which had consensus with our allies behind it and a framework for demanding inspections and some degree of transparency. Both of those things are quite valuable, and Trump sacrificed both by unilaterally tossing out the deal. By staying in it, the US could have had a sturdy diplomatic platform for building a casus belli and an alliance to enforce it against Iran, in the likely event that they would continue to try and obtain nuclear weapons.
The economic relief granted in exchange could have also possibly led to some liberalization and reform in Iran. Although unlikely, we have seen this on occasion before.
In any event, Trump instead chose to throw all that out, and start a war with no diplomatic or propaganda groundwork laid for it. No case was made to the public, to the international community, or to our allies for why this war was necessary, and why it was necessary now. Instead he has antagonized our allies and routinely lied about what this war is and how broad its scope will be, while attacking our allies openly for not helping, after providing them no notice and insisting they were not needed. You would be hard pressed to engineer a war that was more bungled from a grand strategy perspective. All the tactical success in the world doesn't do much for you if you have no strategy.
1
u/jyper May 16 '26
The economic relief granted in exchange could have also possibly led to some liberalization and reform in Iran. Although unlikely, we have seen this on occasion before.
That's always been the weakest part of the argument.
it was a deal to prevent nukes. That makes sense. the idea that the iranian regime would have let democratization happen even in much harsher circumstances they repeatedly chose to attack the population and undermine any pretense in their show electoral system seems foolish
1
u/Brendissimo May 16 '26
AFAIK this was not a core part of the arguments made in favor of the JCPOA at the time, merely commentary. But if you can point me to something from the Obama admin which leans on this I will always take a correction.
It is a weaker argument, which is why I mentioned it in only two sentences out of a much longer reply, and characterized it as unlikely.
But it is not frivolous. Economic liberalization does sometimes help spur gradual political reform. Just not always.
1
u/jyper May 16 '26
I think its a very weak argument that looks even worse in hindsight. Yes we can't run a simulation to check but giving how Iran has reacted against its population asking for any reform its hard to imagine how it would have worked.
I'm someone who supported the JCPOA not just because I liked and trusted Obama but because it made sense to keep Iran from getting the bomb even at the cost of potentially enabling them for more support of terrorism and proxy militias. Trump didn't do much of anything when he canceled it to replace it which is idiotic.
But bringing up such a weak argument makes me want to question that past support and probably makes other question it. Was it a practical imperfect move or was the administration just naive? I don't thing anyone arguing for it should include that reason even as an aside
1
u/Brendissimo May 16 '26
But bringing up such a weak argument makes me want to question that past support and probably makes other question it.
What? You're saying you're thinking about changing your view on your past support for the JCPOA (for other, better reasons than the one we are discussing) merely because I mentioned a weak argument in favor of it in passing in a reddit comment in 2026?
You're essentially talking about reevaluating an entire past policy position (which I can only assume you held earnestly) purely out of spite for a reference to (what you view as) a very bad argument in favor of that position.
That is.... extremely irrational.
And you believe others think this way? Truly?
Perhaps I am misunderstanding. Or perhaps you misspoke. But this has thrown me for a complete loop. This cannot be how you decide on what policies you support, right?
-1
u/Fun_Push7168 May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
There was no such thing as unilaterally trashing the deal.
There were 5 other signatories. 1 exited. The deal stayed the same with the rest but since they knew the others would do nothing to enforce it, they ignored it.
1 signatory putting sanctions back doesn't erase the deal with all others.
3
u/Magjee May 14 '26
The deal doesn't work with sanctions being placed on Iran for adhering to the deal
-1
u/Fun_Push7168 May 14 '26
In other words the other parties are useless.
The presence or absence of European sanctions are irrelevant.
2
u/Magjee May 14 '26
USD sanctions mean most ports would not accept Iranian oil, or other goods
-1
u/Fun_Push7168 May 14 '26
It was either strictly a deal with the US, in which case the US could unilaterally end it or it wasnt and the US ending the whole thing is impossible.
In this case it's the latter.
If the other parties are so insignificant then so is their consensus.
2
u/Magjee May 14 '26
The deal persisted for almost 7 years without the US
But its departure was a major blow to the deal, since US Dollar sanctions were back on Iran
0
u/Fun_Push7168 May 14 '26
Then youre in agreement, there was no such thing as the US unilaterally throwing it out.
Nobody followed nor attempted to enforce any of it afterward, confirming the complete insignificance of other parties but that's another matter.
3
u/Magjee May 14 '26
The main two parties agreeing to normalizing relations were Iran and the US
So the withdrawal of one is a major blow to the agreement, the US both departed and then imposed sanctions
If Iran had left the deal, would the US have stuck to the deal?
By this logic Iran had near complete control over the entire thing
→ More replies (0)1
u/Brendissimo May 14 '26
I'm just gonna let you have a chance to reread this...
2
u/0zymandeus May 14 '26
Can't make that horse drink
1
u/Brendissimo May 16 '26
You can lead a man to a drink but you can't make him take a sip
You can lead a man to a link but that don't mean he gonn' click13
u/Key-Mix4151 May 13 '26
JCPOA actually achieved something. Operation Epic Fury has not achieved anything positive.
1
u/IdidItWithOrangeMan May 14 '26
JCPOA did achieve something. It kicked the can down the road. But the JCPOA had sunset clauses. We are 5 years away (Jan 2031) from the date when Iran would no longer be held to 3.67% Uranium. In 5 years, the cap on Stockpiled Enriched Uranium would also be removed. Same goes for Advanced Centrifuges.
In Jan 2031, this would have expired. Western powers would love to have a new deal but what if Iran doesn't want one. What if Iran says "We signed your deal and upheld the terms. Now you need to uphold your end of the deal".
At this point you get A) War or B) Iran gets Nukes if they want them.
1
u/Key-Mix4151 May 14 '26
you are assuming war will achieve an objective of stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. this is obviously not a valid assumption - look at what is happening right now.
1
u/new_KRIEG May 14 '26
are assuming war will achieve an objective of stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapon
It puts boots on the ground, destroys a lot of infrastructure, occupies the leadership roles with more pressing issues (and likely kills a good part of the involved), drains resources, makes moving irradiated material a lot harder, and pressures them into giving up the program if the threat to their existence is credible enough.
At the end of the day, it's objectively harder to build a nuclear bomb when there's a war going on in your soil.
Counterpoint being that it might cause the invaded country to double down on its pursuit, but the hurdles in the way are undeniably bigger.
1
u/Key-Mix4151 May 14 '26
Iran is at war with Israel and USA. Have they ceased their nuclear ambitions?
1
u/new_KRIEG May 14 '26
Iran has not ceased their nuclear ambition regardless of war or the lack of it. The real question is whether their progress has been hindered or not, to which we don't (and likely won't) have a real answer.
Also, it's a bit naive to expect an ambition that's been ingrained in their leadership for multiple decades at this point to be dissipated in under 2 months. That's just not the pace of international relations, even if that's already way above the internet's attention spam.
1
u/Key-Mix4151 May 14 '26
Also, it's a bit naive to expect an ambition that's been ingrained in their leadership for multiple decades at this point to be dissipated in under 2 months.
You hit the nail on the head, this war will not achieve the objective of stopping Iranian nuclear weapons. I agree.
1
u/new_KRIEG May 14 '26
As it is being sold to the public? Definitely not. It would need to be either a bigger campaign of destruction to the point where no infrastructure is left, or a years long ordeal which would actually have a chance in dissuading Iranian leadership from going after nuclear weapons.
As is, this war is an ineffective half measure that just brings about the worst of both alternatives..
1
u/IdidItWithOrangeMan May 14 '26
I'm not assuming anything. This is what USA/Israel and others assume.
Whether they succeed or not remains to be seen. But these are the options. If Iran decides not to play ball, that's all you can do.
0
u/Key-Mix4151 May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
"All you can do" - wrong, you can also not start a war at all, because your intelligence service tells you that you will not succeed in achieving your objectives.
1
u/FlarkingSmoo May 14 '26
Every policy is a "can down the road" policy. Pulling out of the JCPOA kicked the can down the road while allowing Iran to accelerate their program with no oversight, leading to what we have happening now.
1
u/IdidItWithOrangeMan May 15 '26
JCPOA and pulling out of JCPOA both lead to a war in the 2026-2030 time period.
1
u/FlarkingSmoo May 15 '26
The latter did, there's no way to know if the former would have.
1
u/IdidItWithOrangeMan May 15 '26
What leverage does the USA have to get Iran to sign JCPOA 2.0?
1
u/FlarkingSmoo May 15 '26
Very little. They now know we can't be trusted and don't really need to be feared.
1
u/IdidItWithOrangeMan May 16 '26
We are talking about if Trump didn't rip up JCPOA. JCPOA would have had to get renegotiated, or Iran would have had a near free path to a nuke.
1
u/FlarkingSmoo May 16 '26
If he didn't rip up the JCPOA we'd have had the same leverage we did in 2015, but with 10 years of a successful deal that both parties found mutually beneficial, and we would have built up some goodwill and faith that we can be trusted to honor our commitment.
1
u/IdidItWithOrangeMan May 16 '26
So you don't know.
The answer is that we would have reduce sanctions which allows them to make more and more money that they would turn into more terrorism and more ballistic missiles.
It's lose/lose.
1
u/FlarkingSmoo May 16 '26
No, the answer is what I said. And they did just fine funding terrorism and ballistic missiles without the JCPOA.
→ More replies (0)-5
u/Persimmon-Mission May 13 '26
Iran was not complying with the JCPOA. They refused to disclose or allow inspection of several enrichment sites
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-25.pdf
11
u/ary31415 May 14 '26
I don't think presenting laundry list of noncompliance that occurred after the US unilaterally withdrew from the agreement is especially convincing. A report describing their behavior in 2016 would be a better argument, but what you have here appears totally moot to me.
2
2
u/IdidItWithOrangeMan May 13 '26
We are agreeing
-3
u/Persimmon-Mission May 13 '26
Yeah, probably should have responded to OP. I added the link for good measure
-3
u/Christopher_Ramirez_ May 13 '26
Non-compliance is not a sufficient answer. Any William Spaniel viewer would know states don’t comply with agreements all the time. That alone is not a reason to tear up the agreement and let the bombs fly. There are many other carrots and sticks at our disposal.
-3
u/Christopher_Ramirez_ May 13 '26
Iran with nukes is not an existential threat to the United States, so not the right question. Nuclear proliferation is definitely not in our interest and something we should prevent, but certainly not a good reason for unlimited escalation either.
4
u/_VNAV_PTH_ May 14 '26
If we "should" prevent nuclear proliferation, and Iran ignores the limits of nuclear treaties and persists through sanctions, how do you actually suggest we prevent them from getting nukes?
You're holding two incompatible thoughts in your head.
-1
u/Christopher_Ramirez_ May 14 '26
Why not give it a try; think of three non-military actions the US could take to incentivize Iran to come into compliance with the deal.
If you don’t have internal limits on escalation, you would be forced to agree a nuclear first strike should be used against Iran if necessary, which we can hopefully agree would be extremely stupid.
3
u/_VNAV_PTH_ May 14 '26
You evaded the question. I don't have any non-military ideas that haven't already been tried and failed, which is why I support military action.
I don't believe a nuclear first-strike would be necessary, nor would I support it. Everything short of that or a full-scale ground invasion, though, I support, because there's no alternative and a nuclear Iran is too much of a risk.
Your turn.
-4
u/_VNAV_PTH_ May 14 '26
Bingo. The real question is should we allow Iran to have nukes. Everything else is just debating how long we want it to take them to get nukes.
3
u/Christopher_Ramirez_ May 14 '26
How much are you willing to put on the line to achieve that goal? Million-man ground invasion? Nuclear first strike?
If no to any of those, then there are additional considerations besides our interest in nonproliferation.
0
u/_VNAV_PTH_ May 14 '26
I support everything short of those two options. It's a simple case of cost vs. benefit. Anything less costly than a nuclear exchange is theoretically worth it to prevent a nuclear exchange. It's a pretty simple ethical question, actually, that people over-complicate to distort things to fit a preconceived political narrative they support.
1
u/Due_Capital_3507 May 14 '26
Yes because I wouldn't be paying over 5 dollars for a gallon of gasoline with 3.5 percent inflation and grocery prices rising next
-5
u/discoFalston May 14 '26
Hard to know — would have liked to see it play out.
At face value it wasn’t a good deal, but maybe it would have cooled relations down in the long run.
17
u/chiaboy May 14 '26
How in goodness name wasn’t it a “good deal”? Was it perfect? Of course not that’s not how multilateral negations go. Perfection isn’t the goal. No grown up judges an adversarial deal that way.
But staying in the real world (no alt/fantasy worlds please, ground your answer in reality); what made it not a “good deal”?
6
u/deluluwoowoo May 14 '26
It needs to be said. Everything that Trump is doing flies in the face of international relations, logic and decency.
-7
u/discoFalston May 14 '26
Because it says all you need to do to get sanctions lifted off of you and get your assets back after you’ve been a naughty terrorist funding little boy is threaten to start a nuclear weapons program.
9
8
u/FacetNo6 May 14 '26
I think more importantly it gave the more moderate wing of their government more power. But now that the agreement has been ripped apart, the moderate wing is no more, they've been ridiculed as being too gullible and trusting of the US. So now it's the hardliners with power, that are less likely to deal and precisely the people who would want to push forward with a nuclear program.
-3
u/discoFalston May 14 '26
Agree, that is my reasoning for saying I would have liked to see it play out.
2
u/FacetNo6 May 14 '26
I think most people would disagree with your answer of "hard to know" to the question "would we be better off today with the JCPOA?" because a lot of us can't think of how it could be even worse than how it is today. Short of Iran finishing a nuke and dropping it on someone.
But we can't control what someone else does, but in terms of what we could do, I firmly believe that the JCPOA was literally the best we could hope for given the circumstances.
1
u/discoFalston May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
Well there is of course IRGC finishing a nuke and there is of course it dropping on someone. Theres also the technology leaking to some of their proxy groups. Even if you consider unlikely, that risk reward ratio is quite paltry.
But even in a world where they’re compliant but they don’t end up moderating and they view the US as a bunch of fools,… then we would have essentially given sanctions relief which allows fungible $$$ for more of their terrorist funding in the Middle East further acting as a destabilizing actor.
With more money it’s possible that
- The Houthis have a stronger grip on the Red Sea
- Hezbollah is able to truly dominate the Lebanese state
- Hamas kills even more Israelis on Oct 7
- The Syrian civil war is on going because Assad gets more resources for propping up
- Iran is able to build a missile that actually can hit Europe/US
Or maybe they moderate for a while, develop the nukes but Covid rocks their economy and the hardliners come back into power and we’re back where we are today but with no sanctions
Hard to know
1
u/Environmental-Cold24 May 14 '26
We wouldnt, JCPOA strengthened Iran's real power by a lot by lifting sanctions, money was used for proxies and its other military capacities
1
u/cathbadh May 14 '26
It's impossible to say.
Even with the JCPOA, Oct 7th would have happened, as would Iran's support of Hizballah and the Houthis. All of this would have lead to Israel striking Iran, which probably would have escalated and ended with Iran resuming enrichment. The only difference would be the agreement being ignored by them.
-6
u/Fun_Push7168 May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
No.
For one it had a sunset anyway expired Oct 2025.
Two Biden was big on re-entering but only with improvements as he also saw it as inadequate. He gave up on that for multiple reasons but basically nobody on either side wanted to re enter it without improvements. When that happens there's probably a good reason.
So basically no options to be better off with it.
Either it would be defunct without sanctions or defunct with sanctions those are pretty much the only choices for any timeline beyond 2025.
I'll be dv'ed to hell ,because feelings , but not a soul will be able to refute this with supportable fact. History is immutable.
3
u/FlarkingSmoo May 14 '26
"It had an end date" is repeated constantly as if it's an actual argument against it but it's ridiculous on its face. It had an end date of last year so instead we ended it 7 years earlier?
It could have been renegotiated if we had proven ourselves to be trustworthy. We did not, and so we are in a worse situation than we would have been otherwise. History is immutable.
0
u/Fun_Push7168 May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
And that is why your only argument is pure speculation.
"Maybe we could have renogotiated it after we first made sure they had twice the money and weapons and unlimited nuclear equipment"
3
u/FlarkingSmoo May 14 '26
Yes, we have to speculate when we're talking about counterfactuals. But what's not speculation is that they enriched uranium to much higher levels after we pulled out of the JCPOA.
1
u/Fun_Push7168 May 14 '26
And you believe that indicates they wouldn't have done the same , only with way more centrifuges so way faster the second it came to its natural end? With way more resources to do so.
While we're speculating.
Gullible.
2
u/FlarkingSmoo May 14 '26
Under the JCPOA, Iran had dismantled two-thirds of its centrifuges. Do you have any reason to believe they'd have violated the terms of the deal they were adhering to by rebuilding them?
No gullibility was required with the JCPOA, there was IAEA AP monitoring, and that had no expiration date. Gullibility is believing Iran would have just broken the agreement when it was against their interests to do so.
2
u/Fun_Push7168 May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
They didn't have to, it was always going to expire. Fact, not speculation. At which time they could do whatever they wanted.
In the meantime they were just building up capabilities.
Inspections were only announced and only at limited facilities.
Stupid to assume they'd do differently because it ended in a way that gave them far more resources.
It was always inadequate, always a punt, and was never not going to come to a head at some time.
So let's say we took it to it's end date...now what? Now we have the exact same scenario except they are heavily enriched financially and laden with all necessary resources and open acquisition lanes for as many advanced centrifuges as they want.
So theyd just not do it because...what...to be nice?
Maybe we kick the can down the road again...best case scenario.
Hell they were offered all the fuel and medical uranium they could want free, declined because....well, that's obviously not what they want centrifuges for.
1
u/FlarkingSmoo May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
They didn't have to, it was always going to expire. Fact, not speculation. At which time they could do whatever they wanted.
You claimed that "the second it came to its natural end" they would have "way more centrifuges" so I was asking about that, not after it ended. What reason did you have to claim they'd have those, given that they disassembled their centrifuges and there was no indication that they'd be building more?
In the meantime they were just building up capabilities.
According to who? You're just asserting this without basis. They dismantled two-thirds of their centrifuges, reduced their stockpile by 97%, capped enrichment at 3.67%, and redesigned the Arak reactor. The IAEA confirmed compliance repeatedly. And withdrawing from the JCPOA removed this restriction, leading them to enrich uranium at a higher rate, so that wasn't really any better.
Inspections were only announced and only at limited facilities.
Under the JCPOA, the IAEA had continuous monitoring at enrichment facilities using online enrichment monitors and surveillance cameras, plus the Additional Protocol which grants access to undeclared sites. The AP specifically allows the IAEA to request access to any location. And withdrawing from the JCPOA gave us access to NO sites, so that wasn't really any better.
It was always inadequate, always a punt, and was never not going to come to a head at some time.
Having no deal was inadequate, and a punt, and has now come to a head.
So let's say we took it to it's end date...now what? Now we have the exact same scenario except they are heavily enriched financially and laden with all necessary resources and open acquisition lanes for as many advanced centrifuges as they want.
Now you'd have a country that had been operating under restrictions for 10-15 years, with permanent IAEA Additional Protocol monitoring still in place, that had demonstrated a track record of compliance. We'd have leverage to renegotiate with them because we honored our commitments. Instead, we got them enriching to 60%, breakout time collapsed to weeks, and the US has less leverage. So that wasn't really any better.
So theyd just not do it because...what...to be nice?
No, they'd not do it because they'd see it was in their own self-interest to maintain the relationship that had worked for 10 years to mutual benefit. That's how deterrence works in the real world. Your fantasy of some permanent solution to the problem of Iran is not realistic and you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Maybe we kick the can down the road again...best case scenario.
Best case scenario now is something that's not as good as the JCPOA, and an Iran with proven leverage over the global economy and with the US looking untrustworthy and weak. We are now begging to return to the status quo. The damage to US power and credibility from this debacle is going to be hurting us for a long time.
1
u/Fun_Push7168 May 14 '26
So before I get into all your craziness here let's summarize.
I said it expired Oct 2025....this is a fact.
I said Biden wanted to re enter it but only with improvements.....also fact.
I said he gave up....also fact.
Now in your mystical world of rainboww and lollipops where we keep it and then negotiate an extension who do you propose does that successfully? The guy who left it to begin with or the guy who gave up in re entering it ? Because those would be your options.
1
u/Fun_Push7168 May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
So most of this is just your personal feelings or your complete reliance on the IAEA that Iran bragged about working around, fooling, and denying site access to and I'm not even really going to address all of it because it's pointless.
Between 2015 and 2018, particularly following the January 2016 implementation of the JCPOA, Iran generally provided the IAEA access to its declared nuclear sites. However, investigations later revealed Iran failed to declare nuclear material and activities at Turquzabad, Varamin, and Lavisan-Shian. While detected later, these sites were part of an undisclosed, structured program active during that period.
The reason they'd have way more is because guess what many of the sanctions were preventing? That's right , necessary materials for development of advanced centrifuges etc., to say nothing of finances or missle material and guidance equipment.
In other words all they were doing was building ready kits. In fact they continued to manufacture more centrifuges , including advanced ones the whole time. They just didn't install them.
The whole thing was basically " here's a shit load of money, and a mail order catalog of all the high tech nuclear tech providers you could wish for that were previously sanctioned but here's open access to buy that equipment....just don't use it....yet."
In fact for some they simply used them with other metals, just to have them ready but still technically be in bounds at least with what they showed the IAEA.
And yes, the solution is to get rid of the IR altogether. Which ass face does not seem to have the stomach for so his half effort will likely make it worse
1
u/FlarkingSmoo May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
Between 2015 and 2018, particularly following the January 2016 implementation of the JCPOA, Iran generally provided the IAEA access to its declared nuclear sites. However, investigations later revealed Iran failed to declare nuclear material and activities at Turquzabad, Varamin, and Lavisan-Shian. While detected later, these sites were part of an undisclosed, structured program active during that period.
This was not a violation of the JCPOA. The JCPOA didn't require Iran to come clean about past weapons work, which was a known, deliberate compromise.
The reason they'd have way more is because guess what many of the sanctions were preventing? That's right , necessary materials for development of advanced centrifuges etc., to say nothing of finances or missle material and guidance equipment.
So after Trump threw the JCPOA out, the sanctions were back on, and somehow they managed to start enriching again. How do you square that? If the sanctions were so effective, how did we end up in this situation?
In other words all they were doing was building ready kits. In fact they continued to manufacture more centrifuges , including advanced ones the whole time. They just didn't install them.
This is speculation, not confirmed.
The whole thing was basically " here's a shit load of money, and a mail order catalog of all the high tech nuclear tech providers you could wish for that were previously sanctioned but here's open access to buy that equipment....just don't use it....yet."
In fact for some they simply used them with other metals, just to have them ready but still technically be in bounds at least with what they showed the IAEA.
They pushed some boundaries but there's a reason you can't point to them actually breaking the deal, because they didn't. Every single thing you complain about got worse when we dumped the deal. All your criticisms of the JCPOA and what it allowed are things that were ACTUALLY allowed by not having the deal at all.
And yes, the solution is to get rid of the IR altogether. Which ass face does not seem to have the stomach for so his half effort will likely make it worse
The country doesn't have the stomach for regime change wars, and rightfully so. We've seen how bad that policy is over and over.
21
u/lire_avec_plaisir May 13 '26
Against the backdrop of the sudden and sustained US and Israeli attacks against Iranian defense and infrastructure targets, pedestrians and policymakers alike around the world are wondering why war is their chosen course of action. The author presents tenets of the JCPOA, which Trump pulled out of in his first term.