Iran

[CobbVol]

Why determined that, and what criteria was used to make that determination?

Again, the missile program was not included or addressing their terrorism activities. If Iran was handing our fruit baskets and blankets versus RPGs and missile launchers maybe a different determination would have been reached.

 

[CobbVol]

The JCPOA addressed nuclear material, not missiles. If Iran abided by the JCPOA, then the ballistic missile program threat was moot... just another conventional weapon.

Yep, the scope was too narrow

 

[BeardedVol]

Again, the missile program was not included or addressing their terrorism activities. If Iran was handing our fruit baskets and blankets versus RPGs and missile launchers maybe a different determination would have been reached.

Tell me what criteria was used to decide that the treaty was not in the interests of the United States.

Why not try to negotiate a separate treaty for ballistic missile technology, if that was suddenly of paramount concern?

 

[General Jack]

Every person who takes control has a slightly different perspective. Iranians aren’t a monolith. You keep killing the next man up until you find the one you like



I thought your was the IGRC and ayatollahs, why would that be genocide?


The occupation was the Ley complaint. Not the regime change itself. If you told me we could hit a button and get a different leader in Russia, we’d all be on board. If you said it would require a 50 year occupation we would all be opposed. Regime change and occupation shouldn’t be confused

I'm saying to weed out the IGRC you would effectively have to destroy the population. The IGRC are embedded.

The theory of regime changes makes sense, the execution is the problem, especially with religious fanatics, who are emboldened when attacked.

 

[Vol8188]

I'm saying to weed out the IGRC you would effectively have to destroy the population. The IGRC are embedded.

Disagree fully.

The theory of regime changes makes sense, the execution is the problem, especially with religious fanatics, who are emboldened when attacked.

Even religious fanatics are not a monolith and those religious fanatics were attacking us before this incident, so your cower tactic is illogical.

 

[volbound1700]

Maybe. You raise an interesting question...

How many countries have tried to obtain nuclear weapons but failed?

Roughly 12–15 countries have attempted to develop nuclear weapons programs but ultimately failed, abandoned them, or were stopped before producing usable weapons.

Below are the most widely recognized cases.

---

Countries that attempted nuclear weapons programs but did not end up with them​

1. Programs that were stopped or dismantled​

Iraq​

• Built an extensive nuclear program in the 1970s–80s.
• Key reactor destroyed during the Operation Opera.
• Remaining program dismantled after the Gulf War.

---

Libya​

• Secret nuclear program in the 1990s–2000s.
• Voluntarily abandoned weapons programs in 2003.

---

Syria​

• Built a covert nuclear reactor with North Korean help.
• Destroyed by Israel in the Operation Orchard.

---

2. Programs abandoned voluntarily​

Sweden​

• Serious nuclear weapons program during the 1950s–60s.
• Abandoned and joined the NPT.

---

Switzerland​

• Explored nuclear weapons during the Cold War.
• Cancelled the project in the 1980s.

---

Argentina​

• Nuclear weapons research during military rule.
• Program ended in the 1990s.

---

Brazil​

• Military regime ran a covert weapons effort.
• Abandoned after democratization.

---

South Korea​

• Secret weapons program in the 1970s.
• Stopped under pressure from the United States.

---

Taiwan​

• Attempted nuclear weapons programs twice (1970s and 1980s).
• Shut down after U.S. intervention.

---

Egypt​

• Explored nuclear weapons in the 1960s but never progressed far.

---

3. Countries that inherited weapons but gave them up​

These had nuclear weapons temporarily but dismantled them:

• Ukraine
• Kazakhstan
• Belarus

They inherited Soviet warheads after the collapse of the Soviet Union and transferred them to Russia in the 1990s.

---

Summary​

Approximate categories:

Category	Countries	Count
Attempted but stopped/destroyed	Iraq, Libya, Syria	3
Abandoned programs	Sweden, Switzerland, Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Egypt	7
Inherited then gave up	Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus	3

Total: about 13 countries.

---

Interesting historical fact:
More countries started nuclear weapons programs than actually succeeded—only 9 countries currently possess nuclear weapons.

---

If you'd like, I can also show which countries came closest to building a bomb before being stopped—some were only months away.

That doesn't include everyone. Where is South Africa for example?

South Africa and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[CobbVol]

Tell me what criteria was used to decide that the treaty was not in the interests of the United States.

Why not try to negotiate a separate treaty for ballistic missile technology, if that was suddenly of paramount concern?

Not in room, but below are reasons and thoughts on why ...

Too narrow of scope
Did not address ballistic missile program
Did not address they being a state sponsor of terrorism
Sanction relief allowed too early

Without addressing their support for terrorism, how do you think them being able to still have a nuclear weapon after a period of time is good for the world?

 

[EasternVol]

You don’t believe we have popular support?

We being US and Israel? Probably not a huge amount. Getting bombed tends to lower favorable poll numbers toward the bombers, especially if the bombers are famously meddlesome in the country's internal affairs.

And Iran was far less than air strikes. Wha do you see in 79 that you consider so much more?

An organic revolution.

 

[CobbVol]

 

[KB5252]

I'm not insensitive to their plight, but if they can't fight to take power, how do they maintain power? Maybe someone should look at arming the opposition. And by someone, I mean Israel, not the U.S.This is more Israel's fight than it is ours, IMO.

How do you arm them? That requires an air air strip and infrastructure, which requires boots on the ground. Complicated given the circumstances, neighbors and especially the terrain.

The best bet might be through the Kurds but that comes with great problems as well.

Not crapping on your suggestion but pointing out how difficult that undertaking is.

 

[CobbVol]

 

[Vol8188]

We being US and Israel? Probably not a huge amount. Getting bombed tends to lower favorable poll numbers toward the bombers, especially if the bombers are famously meddlesome in the country's internal affairs.

Not when you’re bombing the regime that just murdered thousands of protesters

An organic revolution.

That’s significantly less militarily

 

[KB5252]

We being US and Israel? Probably not a huge amount. Getting bombed tends to lower favorable poll numbers toward the bombers, especially if the bombers are famously meddlesome in the country's internal affairs.

An organic revolution.

Whatever good graces we have with the people there trends downward over time as food, resources and other supplies get scarce.

 

[BeardedVol]

Not in room, but below are reasons and thoughts on why ...

Too narrow of scope
Did not address ballistic missile program
Did not address they being a state sponsor of terrorism
Sanction relief allowed too early

Without addressing their support for terrorism, how do you think them being able to still have a nuclear weapon after a period of time is good for the world?

So you destroy a treaty because it didn't include a provision about missile technology, rather than negotiate a separate treaty?

Where's the logic in this course of action?

Being a "state sponsor of terrorism" is just a classification that we made up so that we could use US financial mechanisms to go after funding.

Russia funds terrorism all over the world, but we don't slap them with that designation because Trump believes he's in a bromantic relationship with Putin, and they have nuclear weapons.

The same goes for North Korea, we designated them a "state sponsor of terrorism", but we don't really do anything about his because they have nuclear weapons.

 

[KB5252]

Not when you’re bombing the regime that just murdered thousands of protesters



That’s significantly less militarily

As the screws are tightened on the regime they are also applied to the population. No way around that. If they are going to rise up and take it back it has to start soon

 

[KB5252]

So you destroy a treaty because it didn't include a provision about missile technology, rather than negotiate a separate treaty?

Where's the logic in this course of action?

Being a "state sponsor of terrorism" is just a classification that we made up so that we could use US financial mechanisms to go after funding.

Russia funds terrorism all over the world, but we don't slap them with that designation because Trump believes he's in a bromantic relationship with Putin, and they have nuclear weapons.

The same goes for North Korea, we designated them a "state sponsor of terrorism", but we don't really do anything about his because they have nuclear weapons.

Except we have applied sanctions on Russia....... And we are currently engaged with their close ally. I've never understood the "bromance" narrative.

 

[EasternVol]

Not when you’re bombing the regime that just murdered thousands of protesters

We'll see.

That’s significantly less militarily

It's free of outside interference.

 

[Orangeburst]

Checkpoint attacks open new front in Iran war

The Iran war appears to be entering a new phase as attacks increasingly target checkpoints and street-level security units, while witness reports sent to Iran International suggest many of those positions are being moved or dismantled after their locations are exposed.

www.iranintl.com

 

[CagleMtnVol]

Boots on the ground implies extended duration. An amphibious assault ship is on the way with a couple thousand Marines. Different mission profile than special forces missions. Everyone will know they're there.

I'd say the Tripoli coming has more to do with securing the Straight with it's Harrier jets and it's Viper & Venom choppers to get in along the shore to take out things that fast jets can't see.

 

[volfanhill]

View attachment 819765

So they attempted to close something we will eventually reopen? He's a moron

 

[Vol8188]

We'll see.

It's free of outside interference.

That’s inaccurate. Russia has been highly involved in Iran even before the Shah

 

[ButchPlz]

So they attempted to close something we will eventually reopen? He's a moron

The messaging around the Strait is just outright confusing. They need to get the propaganda in line if they want us to buy it.

 

[BeardedVol]

Except we have applied sanctions on Russia....... And we are currently engaged with their close ally. I've never understood the "bromance" narrative.

We have sanctions against Iran already as well.

https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-information/iran-sanctions

You've never understood the bromance "narrative"?

In pictures: Trump rolls out the red carpet for Putin - BBC News

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have met in the US state of Alaska for talks on the war in Ukraine. These are the key pictures from the summit.

www.bbc.co.uk

Critics aghast as White House displays framed photo of Trump with Putin

Lawmaker from Estonia says photo celebrates ‘the greatest war criminal of the 21st century’

www.theguardian.com

Trump praises ‘genius’ Putin for moving troops to eastern Ukraine

Former president says Russian leader made ‘very savvy’ decision to recognise two territories of eastern Ukraine as independent

www.theguardian.com

Trump thinks Putin may become his friend, Haley disagrees

Donald Trump recently said Putin may become "a friend" of the United States. Nikki Haley, however, said Putin's government is "never going to be our friend."

www.ms.now

Trump sides with Russia against FBI at Helsinki summit

The US president contradicts intelligence agencies over claims of interference in the US election.

www.bbc.com

 

[MontyPython]

View attachment 819765

Straight from the horse's ass mouth. Trump writes:

"We have already destroyed 100% of Iran's military capability, but it's easy for them to send a drone or two, drop a mine, or deliver a close range missile somewhere along, or in, this Waterway [sic] no matter how badly defeated they are."

So even Trump admits he can't stop Iran from blockading the Strait of Hormuz. Not only that, he says nothing about our Navy going in there to escort ships but instead begs a bunch of our "allies" (most of whom he's either insulted or slapped unreasonable tariffs upon) to sail *their* naval ships into Hormuz to help us.

Remember this little nugget, Donnie?

In a Truth Social post - one week ago - directed at Keir Starmer, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, Trump rejected British naval help for the war with Iran and claimed the war had already been won.

Direct quote:

“The United Kingdom, our once Great Ally, maybe the Greatest of them all, is finally giving serious thought to sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East. That’s OK, Prime Minister Starmer, we don’t need them any longer — but we will remember. We don’t need people that join wars after we’ve already won!” (ایران اینترنشنال | Iran International)

If you're keeping score at home, that's Trump says:

(1) The Iranian nuclear threat was obliterated last June, but we need to invade Iran to destroy its nuclear threat; and

(2) We've already won the war, so we don't need your naval help, England, but we just can't unblock Hormuz, so can you please help us with your navy.

Reaction from MAGA morons: "WE'RE WINNING!!!"

 

[BeardedVol]

Straight from the horse's ass mouth. Trump writes:

"We have already destroyed 100% of Iran's military capability, but it's easy for them to send a drone or two, drop a mine, or deliver a close range missile somewhere along, or in, this Waterway [sic] no matter how badly defeated they are."

So even Trump admits he can't stop Iran from blockading the Strait of Hormuz. Not only that, he says nothing about our Navy going in there to escort ships but instead begs a bunch of our "allies" (most of whom he's either insulted or slapped unreasonable tariffs upon) to sail *their* naval ships into Hormuz to help us.

Remember this little nugget, Donnie?

In a Truth Social post - one week ago - directed at Keir Starmer, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, Trump rejected British naval help for the war with Iran and claimed the war had already been won.

Direct quote:



If you're keeping score at home, that's Trump says:

(1) The Iranian nuclear threat was obliterated last June, but we need to invade Iran to destroy its nuclear threat; and

(2) We've already won the war, so we don't need your naval help, England, but we just can't unblock Hormuz, so can you please help us with your navy.

Reaction from MAGA morons: "WE'RE WINNING!!!"

Impossible; I've been told by numerous posters in this forum that the US doesn't need NATO allied military assets, or access to their facilities in Europe.