https://thehill.com/policy/international/527724-iranian-scie...
You can't just say that without tons of credible evidence to back it up.
Especially given Iran has no nuclear weapons while Israel does have them and refuses to sign any regulating treaty.
> In the U.S. our nuclear arsenal is a defensive weapon. So, not morally equivalent.
think you forgot the sarcasm tag. The U.S. is the ONLY country in history to have ever used nuclear weapons offensively.
The Iranians have followed the nuclear deal, the U.S. has pulled out and violated the agreement. If anything, it is the U.S. that has shown itself as the irrational player here.
What are you talking about?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear/britain-fran...
Additionally, Iran often has not allowed international inspectors access to its nuclear facilities. This is required to audit that Iran is actually following the terms of the deal.
That’s why America pulled out of the deal.
There is no deal if the signatories pull out. Prior to America pulling out, international inspectors were allowed access.
“ Iran says military sites are off-limits for nuclear inspections despite U.S. pressure”
https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-iran-nuclear-201708...
American withdrew from the deal in May 2018 because Iran would not allow independent auditors to inspect all known or suspected sites.
See also this from 2015:
“The Iranian Nuclear-Inspection Charade Iran is allowed ample time, up to 24 days, to hide or destroy evidence before inspectors are given access.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iranian-nuclear-inspection-...
There were other instances going back to 2005.
The UN atomic watchdog certified the Iranians were following the deal until sometime after the U.S. pulled out.
Nobody asked for that. They asked for inspection of sites that show radionuclides emissions or specific heat signatures indicative of enrichment. I believe these are detected from satellite and environmental sensors. See:
https://news.mit.edu/2018/explained-detecting-threat-nuclear...
Update: Yes, this can be detected from satellite imagery:
http://www.princeton.edu/~aglaser/IT009-Glaser-2010-iGSE-New...
> The UN atomic watchdog certified the Iranians were following the deal until sometime after the U.S. pulled out.
Source?
The U.S. has claimed that. The UN watchdog says they followed the deal. I trust them over the U.S. for sure.
> American withdrew from the deal in May 2018
And yet, the Iranians STILL followed the deal for quite a bit longer.
> Source?
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-04/news/iaea-says-iran-...
Indeed, I would, too. But it’s not just the US. It’s Britain, France, and Germany:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear/britain-fran...
Are you suggesting that all 4 countries are colluding together on this?
The EU was not able to ensure the benefits Iran agreed to the deal under because of secondary U.S. sanctions, so Iran pulled out. They would have no credibility left if they didn't.
Indeed, I would, too. But it’s not just the US. It’s Britain, France, and Germany:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear/britain-fran...
(Jan 14, 2020)
Are you suggesting that all 4 countries are colluding together on this?
Yeah, exactly. This is way past the U.S. pullout from the deal. You're proving my point.
> Trump has argued that Iran is violating the agreement struck under President Obama, although he has offered no evidence to support his claim and his administration has twice certified to Congress that Iran is in compliance.
For your second, that is no indication of any violation of the deal.
From the BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655
"Before July 2015, Iran had a large stockpile of enriched uranium and almost 20,000 centrifuges, enough to create eight to 10 bombs, according to the Obama administration. ...
The agency's director-general, Yukiya Amano, said the report concluded that until 2003 Iran had conducted "a co-ordinated effort" on "a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device"."
August 30, 2012: The IAEA reports that Iran increased the number of centrifuges installed at the Fordow enrichment plant and is continuing to produce uranium enriched to 20 percent in excess of its needs for the Tehran Research Reactor.
There are numerous indications that Iran did not live up to the deal for many years from credible sources that are NOT American.
But if you want to keep your head in the sand, there's nothing I or anyone else can do to change that. You've got your version of the truth, and I've got mine.
> Until 2003 ...
> August 30, 2012 ....
> There are numerous indications that Iran did not live up to the deal for many years from credible sources that are NOT American.
The Iran deal was signed in July 2015, so unclear how they were "not living up to the deal" prior to being a signatory.
I am not the one with their head in the sand here, have a good day.
In one of those presentations Netanyahu specifically called out Fakhrizadeh saying, “Remember that name.”
They believe that because Iran’s leaders specifically call for the destruction of Israel, just taking Iran at its word.
There's no evidence Iran has pursued anything since entering the agreement, the Israeli intel is rehashed old news[1].
> They believe that because Iran’s leaders specifically call for the destruction of Israel, just taking Iran at its word.
Israeli leaders call out for the destruction of Palestine and its people, should we take them at their word?[2][3].
1 - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/netanyahu-s-info-iran-n...
2 - https://www.dailysabah.com/mideast/2014/07/14/mothers-of-all...
3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Israeli_annexation_of...
In Iran it’s the Ayatollah saying it on the regular, and they’ve made it basically a national holiday. [1]
[1] - https://apnews.com/article/a033042303545d9ef783a95222d51b83
Or, you know, the minister of justice.
No, we used 2 nuclear weapons against Japan. Japan attacked the U.S. at Pearl Harbor. We were defending ourselves against their original attack.
That happened in 41, the bombs were dropped in 45.
Hardly any civilians died at Pearl Harbor, it was a military target. Hundreds of thousands civilians died after U.S. launched the bombs.
This was not a proportional response to Pearl Harbor or any other attack by the Japanese. There was no need for nukes to "defend" yourselves. In fact the U.S. was one of the least impacted countries of WWII among the major powers.
Statements at the time by U.S. officials indicate this was deliberate aggression to show the power of the bomb to the world as not to challenge U.S. dominance.
Japan proved it would not surrender, so the only option was to nuke them into submission. Otherwise, hundreds of thousands of American soldiers would have died.
Well, I think all reasonable minds see that the intent of the US is to stay as the world's power and it is a bad intent to have a nuclear weapon for!
Israel already has a nuclear bomb that could be used to destroy Iran, though.
>So, not morally equivalent.
Are you implying that Iran's leaders are suicidal fanatics?
I'm not sure whether Iran's leaders are suicidal fanatics, but they're definitely fanatics.
Israeli politicians have said enough very questionable statements to fill a book. But everybody sorts of understands them to be targeted at a domestic audience for pandering. Why is Iran supposedly different here?
https://www.dailysabah.com/mideast/2014/07/14/mothers-of-all...
This is Iran's LEADER:
On a serious note, I think the many Palestinians imprisoned on questionable grounds would disagree with you.
Apart from that, Israel is known to have tested experimental drugs etc. on Palestinians[1] and aims to cripple[2], so as far as inflicting harm, they're quite credible.
1 - https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190220-israel-pharmaceut...
2 - https://apnews.com/article/6035b1d3293c4a298145afbff50ab844
https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%...
P.S. I wanted a non-paywalled article.
Claiming that the own nuclear arsenal is defensive while the empirical evidence suggests otherwise is a pretty strange notion. If the going gets tough, the U.S. is probably going to use nukes again. Hopefully it won't get that tough. I'm not even sure how you can use a nuke defensively. Kill them all first because they kill us...I guess it could be argued to be defensive technically.
The US is the only country that has deployed nuclear weapons - and additionally have modern, adjustible-yeild tactical nukes. How is it "defensive"?
You can argue that Iran is not trustworthy, or that it's proliferation, but the way you put it, it's pure hypocracy.
If you believe that majority (just become more people are influenced through media with the same view as yours) can force a political view onto a minority, then I think we need a more serious talk on whether or not you might find a better life in China or Iran.
I am serious here. Do not think I intend to mock you. Rule by majority is not what I approve for myself to live in US.
Both sides thought what they were doing was right and there is always a way to justify the means.
Disclaimer: I am from a country which was neutral during the WW2.
Edit: Here is the thing, I do not want this to become a "Who is the most evil?" thread, so I will not be responding except for this edit (I suggest everyone to do the same).
The point of this comment was that, public perspective is something that can easily be manipulated. The phrase "History is written by the victors." means exactly that. I just wanted to mention that Germany would use the example I gave to justify their actions "Wow they are evil. see what they did?". One should always be mindful where they are standing and check if they are being manipulated or not.
If this comment starts a flame war, dang, please feel free to delete the whole thread.
I get that it's important to see history from multiple points of view, but this idea that "Both sides thought what they were doing was right and there is always a way to justify the means" is just unabashed moral relativism.
There's value to be had in honestly recognizing that if I was born in Japan or Germany during the 1920s I'd probably have turned out just like the people I'm criticizing. But we also have to have conviction in what is good and what is evil.
The holocaust was bad, but it's going to be a hard stretch to justify what we did in Japan because of the depravity of their soldiers in China.
I have a conviction that that was an evil, evil, evil thing to do.
Between letting the Empire of Japan continue to exist without reform, a conventional invasion, and the atomic bombings the last option was by far the most humane.
I don't know what you're going with this line of discussion, but this over-emphasis on the atomic bombings are a common talking point among Japanese apologists and nationalists to try and depict Japan as a victim rather than an aggressor. The atomic bombings, combined, claimed fewer lives than several individual conventional strategic bombing campaigns in both Germany and Japan.
Intended to expend tens of millions of its people's lives if the United States tried to take and occupy Japan.
Most wars don't end with the other country being occupied or its government being overthrown.
I thought that is precisely how most wars end.
Well I don't know what to tell you, it usually isn't.
A far, far more likely scenario is Israeli right-wing hawkish politicians starting a war with Iran in the name of "pre-emptive" strike.