Iran

#3,826
#3,826
Persian Vol said:
The whole point is that red lines should be based on evidence, not suspicion. My “line in the sand” is simple. Proof of weaponization, actual moves toward warhead design, miniaturization, or credible intel of breakout intent.
Click to expand...
I agree. The concern, and I know you are aware of this, is if there is no hard evidence or irrefutable proof. If development happened in secret and those developed nuclear weapons are used, the response must be swift, brutal, and consequential.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, Smokey123 and Persian Vol
#3,827
#3,827
Orange_Crush said:
That's a straw man, actually.

But again... You're reduced to posting assumptions to combat claimed assumptions from the other side.

Here's what aren't assumptions:

1. Iran is home to massive state-sponsored terrorism.
2. Iran has been promising obliteration of Israel and the US for years.
3. Iran has been threatening nuclear weapons capabilities, and its use.
4. Every public source, including Iran, admits that they are at or above ~ 60%.
5. Israel attacked, and the US is considering its level of additional involvement.
6. The US publicly states that this is b/c Iran will NOT have nuclear capabilities.
7. The US has released statements claiming that Iran was incredibly close to weaponized nuclear capabilities.


So, you are claiming that the US's information releases are untrustworthy, while claiming that US releases are what would help you trust the actions...?

Again, you don't wait until they have a bomb to then try to take it away from them. When the proverbial neighborhood madman makes the promises, orders the materials, and bombards himself in his house, you go in hard before the neighborhood explodes.
Click to expand...

  1. Yes, Iran sponsors terrorism — and we’ve still managed deterrence without launching full-scale war for decades.
  2. Yes, their rhetoric is ugly — but North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia have used similar language. Rhetoric alone doesn’t justify war.
  3. They’ve threatened nuclear capability? There’s a difference between enriching uranium and threatening to nuke someone. The IAEA and U.S. intel have not confirmed weaponization.
  4. 60% enrichment is public, but still below weapons-grade. They’ve stopped there for 3 years.

5–7. Israel’s actions and U.S. concern are real, but concern is not evidence. If the U.S. or IAEA had hard proof Iran was building a bomb, they’d release it, just like they did with Iraq (even when it turned out wrong).

As for your “neighborhood madman” analogy, that’s not a policy. That’s a movie plot. Real foreign policy isn’t driven by worst-case metaphors, it’s based on intel, verification, and strategic containment. If your only solution is “go in hard,” then your argument isn’t about preventing a bomb, it’s about gambling that war solves ambiguity.

You say, “Don’t wait until they have a bomb.” But starting a war on the possibility of a bomb is how we ended up in Iraq with no WMDs and decades of chaos. Suspicion is not proof. And war without proof is not strength, it’s recklessness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol and OHvol40
#3,830
#3,830
Vol8188 said:
The same IAEA whose recent report was the triggering event for the current war? There’s same IAEA who called them noncompliant for the first time in multiple decades and stated they were merely a “decision away” from weaponization?
Click to expand...
That’s naive

The same report said they had found no indication Iran was manufacturing a nuclear weapon. It’s also not new information, they assessed in the past that the early 2000’s they were trying but they have no been trying since 2003


Based off your posts tho It does seem you strongly supported Obama nuclear deal
 
#3,831
#3,831
Persian Vol said:
  1. Yes, Iran sponsors terrorism — and we’ve still managed deterrence without launching full-scale war for decades.
  2. Yes, their rhetoric is ugly — but North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia have used similar language. Rhetoric alone doesn’t justify war.
  3. They’ve threatened nuclear capability? There’s a difference between enriching uranium and threatening to nuke someone. The IAEA and U.S. intel have not confirmed weaponization.
  4. 60% enrichment is public, but still below weapons-grade. They’ve stopped there for 3 years.

5–7. Israel’s actions and U.S. concern are real, but concern is not evidence. If the U.S. or IAEA had hard proof Iran was building a bomb, they’d release it, just like they did with Iraq (even when it turned out wrong).

As for your “neighborhood madman” analogy, that’s not a policy. That’s a movie plot. Real foreign policy isn’t driven by worst-case metaphors, it’s based on intel, verification, and strategic containment. If your only solution is “go in hard,” then your argument isn’t about preventing a bomb, it’s about gambling that war solves ambiguity.

You say, “Don’t wait until they have a bomb.” But starting a war on the possibility of a bomb is how we ended up in Iraq with no WMDs and decades of chaos. Suspicion is not proof. And war without proof is not strength, it’s recklessness.
Click to expand...
As 8188 has shown, you yourself said that the enrichment and claims are nuclear threats. That is not in question. I am not saying that they threaten to HAVE nuclear ability. I'm saying that they are threatening to be close with intentions.

And again.. You are saying not to act on assumptions, while acting on the assumptions that the US needs to share all intel publicly or it shouldn't be done.

You have created the catch 22 where the only justification for this is a public statement from the US, while assuming that the current public statements justifying the action are lies.
You have created the situation where I am told not to trust the US's justification due to the US's history, but I should not make any assumptions about Iran based on their long history of actions.

So, you've created a conversation that will never be productive. You can operate on assumptions. We can't. And there is apparently no condition in which the activity can be justified since we can't trust the US's justification via public statement, but that's the mechanism for justification.

Instead, you say we should just wait until there is public proof of a bomb, despite the high stakes of there being a bomb.

I'll ask again. Was there a danger of your patient exploding into white-hot magma across the planet at any given moment?
 
#3,832
#3,832
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
This is perfect and succinct.

Do something to "obtain leverage" but expect Israel not to respond by answering your leverage and destroying it.

We saw this happen with Nico. Leverage your position to the point where the "Nope" line is and find yourself in a worse position.

Poor Nico. Poor Iran.

And @Persian Vol wants to insist the world is overreacting. Okay, give up your 60% uranium and your multiple centrifuges and start ACTUALLY recognizing Israel and negotiating like your Arabic neighbors did.

There's a path for Iran to become a stable part of the ME. Egypt did it. Jordan did it. Come to the damn table, stop threatening to blow nations off the map, and we'll see what can happen.
Click to expand...

We’re all going in circles, and when the Nico is Iran analogies start is my cue to get on with today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol737, SpaceCoastVol, EasternVol and 2 others
#3,833
#3,833
Smokey123 said:
That’s naive

The same report said they had found no indication Iran was manufacturing a nuclear weapon. It’s also not new information, they assessed in the past that the early 2000’s they were trying but they have no been trying since 2003


Based off your posts tho It does seem you strongly supported Obama nuclear deal
Click to expand...

There was new information. Failure to comply was new. In 2003 they didn’t have the capabilities they do today. In 2003 the IAEA wasn’t proclaiming they were merely a decision away. In 2003 they didn’t have 60% enriched uranium

I did not. It’s a disingenuous joke to suggest otherwise. Nuking Iran would prevent nuclear capability. We could also simply pay them trillions annually and they’d likely agree not to make a nuclear weapon (possibly even disarm entirely). I don’t support those nor do/did I support the Obama deal
 
#3,835
#3,835
Vol8188 said:
There was new information. Failure to comply was new. In 2003 they didn’t have the capabilities they do today. In 2003 the IAEA wasn’t proclaiming they were merely a decision away. In 2003 they didn’t have 60% enriched uranium

I did not. It’s a disingenuous joke to suggest otherwise. Nuking Iran would prevent nuclear capability. We could also simply pay them trillions annually and they’d likely agree not to make a nuclear weapon (possibly even disarm entirely). I don’t support those nor do/did I support the Obama deal
Click to expand...
Exactly you didn’t support it because this isn’t just about uranium. You supported the withdrawal that resulted in them enriching their uranium. It’s a major flaw in the argument you’ve been on about

The IAEA didn’t say they were merely a decision away that’s your claim
 
#3,837
#3,837
Smokey123 said:
Exactly you didn’t support it because this isn’t just about uranium. You supported the withdrawal that resulted in them enriching their uranium. It’s a major flaw in the argument you’ve been on about

The IAEA didn’t say they were merely a decision away that’s your claim
Click to expand...
I'll weigh in that I didn't support Trump withdrawing from JCPOA NOR Iran enriching to 60%. Neither makes the world safer.

Trump assured us he'd negotiate a better deal. He hasn't so far and that's a failure. It's unpopular to suggest Trump fails at anything on VN but this one is obvious. Don't pull out of the deal until you're VERY sure you can get a better one or crap like this happens.

Unlike many here, Trump gets balls and strikes called by me just like everyone else in politics. And he should by most Americans, but he usually doesn't because "you're not loyal" unless you believe his decisions are always "the best, the biggest, the greatest."

Like Iran, Trump's rhetoric sucks much of the time. He gets slack from me because he does quite a few good things domestically. Globally, not so much.

As for Iran, they are a rogue state and they get no slack and deserve no slack. Keep supporting terror, keep arming terrorists, keep insisting Israel must be destroyed, keep insisting America must be attacked....... you will get no slack from me at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh, Orange_Crush and Smokey123
#3,838
#3,838
Smokey123 said:
Exactly you didn’t support it because this isn’t just about uranium. You supported the withdrawal that resulted in them enriching their uranium. It’s a major flaw in the argument you’ve been on about

The IAEA didn’t say they were merely a decision away that’s your claim
Click to expand...

It’s not a flaw at all. They couldn’t enrich uranium if we dropped a nuclear weapon. They’d likely agree to stop if we gave them trillions of dollars.

I fail to see any logic in what you’re saying. How is supporting the withdrawal from the Obama deal a flaw in my argument?

Meanwhile I’ll work on backing my earlier claim. It’s based on a chat gpt summary I viewed earlier.
 
#3,839
#3,839
Vol8188 said:
It’s not a flaw at all. They couldn’t enrich uranium if we dropped a nuclear weapon. They’d likely agree to stop if we gave them trillions of dollars.

I fail to see any logic in what you’re saying. How is supporting the withdrawal from the Obama deal a flaw in my argument?

Meanwhile I’ll work on backing my earlier claim. It’s based on a chat gpt summary I viewed earlier.
Click to expand...
They agreed to stop without us giving them any money lol
 
#3,841
#3,841
Smokey123 said:
They agreed to stop without us giving them any money lol
Click to expand...

You’re intentionally missing my point. There’s several ways to get them to stop. We could destroy them. We could bribe them. Etc.

You don’t expect to support every possible way do you?

You seem to be falsely framing this as if I’m open to any option that will slow their movement towards a nuclear weapon. That’s not true. The Obama deal, along with the two hypothetical scenarios I provided being examples.

Not sure how you see this as some sort of gotcha
 
#3,842
#3,842
FortSanders said:
A primitive and violent leader who has sworn to destroy our country is about to develop a weapon that can do just that. We have the ability to eliminate that threat. In what universe do we forbear.
Click to expand...
How exactly could Iran "destroy our country"?

Their max range missiles can't even reach the US, so it can't be that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey123
#3,843
#3,843
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
I'll weigh in that I didn't support Trump withdrawing from JCPOA NOR Iran enriching to 60%. Neither makes the world safer.

Trump assured us he'd negotiate a better deal. He hasn't so far and that's a failure. It's unpopular to suggest Trump fails at anything on VN but this one is obvious. Don't pull out of the deal until you're VERY sure you can get a better one or crap like this happens.

Unlike many here, Trump gets balls and strikes called by me just like everyone else in politics. And he should by most Americans, but he usually doesn't because "you're not loyal" unless you believe his decisions are always "the best, the biggest, the greatest."

Like Iran, Trump's rhetoric sucks much of the time. He gets slack from me because he does quite a few good things domestically. Globally, not so much.

As for Iran, they are a rogue state and they get no slack and deserve no slack. Keep supporting terror, keep arming terrorists, keep insisting Israel must be destroyed, keep insisting America must be attacked....... you will get no slack from me at all.
Click to expand...
I agree, an oppressive regime that supports terror proxies gets what’s coming to them. I just hope the US stays out of it but sadly ik that’s too late
 
#3,844
#3,844
Smokey123 said:
The IAEA didn’t say they were merely a decision away that’s your claim
Click to expand...

You’re right. I misread that. The exact summary did not state the IAEA stated that, but rather “western officials” stated that based on the “iaea” report
 
#3,845
#3,845
Vol8188 said:
You’re right. I misread that. The exact summary did not state the IAEA stated that, but rather “western officials” stated that based on the “iaea” report
Click to expand...
Correct and the Head of the IAEA stated this “It’s true that in the early 2000s, there had been some activities which were assessed at that time as related to nuclear weapon development…we are not seeing this now,” he says, adding that, therefore, discussing a timeline would be nothing more than “pure speculation.” We’re told the report is the reason for the war and Iran is 2 weeks away and the IAEA denies that. It’s contradictory. On top of that nothing from the report is new information
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#3,846
#3,846
Smokey123 said:
I agree, an oppressive regime that supports terror proxies gets what’s coming to them. I just hope the US stays out of it but sadly ik that’s too late
Click to expand...
Iran gets what it asks for over and over again and continues to defy logic by not recognizing Israel, coming to the table, and working within normal diplomatic parameters. They continue to arm groups like the Houthi who attack US vessels in the Red Sea.

Then guys like @Persian Vol insist THEY are being treated poorly by the world. Russia and China have supported them as their "attack Chihuahua" in the region and the quicker Iran realizes, like others did in the region, that Russia and China will abandon them when the missiles come at them as they have this time, the better for their people and the better for the world.

It's dumb but some countries are very slow learners when it comes to Russia and China.
 
#3,847
#3,847
Smokey123 said:
Correct and the Head of the IAEA stated this “It’s true that in the early 2000s, there had been some activities which were assessed at that time as related to nuclear weapon development…we are not seeing this now,” he says, adding that, therefore, discussing a timeline would be nothing more than “pure speculation.” We’re told the report is the reason for the war and Iran is 2 weeks away and the IAEA denies that. It’s contradictory. On top of that nothing from the report is new information
Click to expand...

Why the focus on the exact timeframe is what I don’t understand?

60% is close. They’re noncompliant. Refusing inspections.

So if it’s 2 weeks or 2 years, why does that matter so much to you?
 
#3,849
#3,849
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
Iran gets what it asks for over and over again and continues to defy logic by not recognizing Israel, coming to the table, and working within normal diplomatic parameters. They continue to arm groups like the Houthi who attack US vessels in the Red Sea.

Then guys like @Persian Vol insist THEY are being treated poorly by the world. Russia and China have supported them as their "attack Chihuahua" in the region and the quicker Iran realizes, like others did in the region, that Russia and China will abandon them when the missiles come at them as they have this time, the better for their people and the better for the world.

It's dumb but some countries are very slow learners when it comes to Russia and China.
Click to expand...

That’s not what I said, but okay.
 
#3,850
#3,850
Vol8188 said:
Why the focus on the exact timeframe is what I don’t understand?

60% is close. They’re noncompliant. Refusing inspections.

So if it’s 2 weeks or 2 years, why does that matter so much to you?
Click to expand...
Because we’ve been told they’re weeks away for years. Now people are using this report as a validation for a war that is deploying US military personnel to the ME. When the report states the exact opposite of what is getting claimed. Enriching uranium to weapons grade isn’t the only part of getting a nuclear bomb, they’ve shown no signs of that in over 20 years anyways

Why on earth would you be ok with being lied to to lead us into another war
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top