At this point, no country in the world will ever again 'make a deal' with the US, because while pretending to negotiate with you they try to ram a knife into your back.
The world already know this. Having an agreement with the USA is a lot like having an agreement with Darth Vader. The terms of the deal can be altered unexpectedly at any time.
That doesn't mean that such agreements are worthless. They can still be of value to the counties making them. It is just that those countries have to take into account the unreliability of the entity they are making the deal with. Deals with the USA involve a lot of forecasting.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/peace-within-reach-...
Just to be clear I’m not pro war! I take Iranian regime as the first and foremost responsible party in this mess and then US! My people stuck in this disaster of a power struggle.
The magnitude of human suffering this will bring, civil war, sectarian violence, it all leads to hundreds of millions of people dying, millions of people displaced. Nobody likes the Iranian regime, just like nobody liked Saddam, its not the point. These wars are barbaric, not in the interests of anybody but Israel and a select few American arms dealers and pedophiles that propagandize their way to barely conscious sheep in the west clapping along to the barbarism AGAIN.
The obnoxious sanctimonious behavior of telling random Iranians to “wake the fuck up” as if we have a saying in what either Iranian government or the US side does. Go pound sand.
Don’t you see any similarity between what you say and any colonial. And my brain is broken?
Let me put it in a way that’s easy to comprehend for you. War is bad and Iranian government is as much responsible for this war as the US. I don’t understand how this is so triggering for some.
edit.
> Evidently I care more about the hundreds of thousands of Iranian people that will die in this war than you.
Did you care equally when thousands of Iranians were massacred in the streets by the government or the “care” activates only when convenient?
I'm anti-interventionism, you can't seriously reframe that into western chauvinism.
> War is bad and Iranian government is as much responsible for this war as the US. I don’t understand how this is so triggering for some.
Because its just not true, there would be no war without the US and Israel starting it, PERIOD. It's triggering because you could've said exactly the same thing about the Iraq war, its always the same disaster and people never listen or learn anything, that's why its frustrating.
“there would be no war without Hamas starting it, PERIOD.”
See how dishonest and ignorant that sounds?
For everyone else reading this thread as Iran being bombed: In 47 years of constant confrontation, islamic regime has not built one fucking bomb shelter for its people for these days. Let that sink in. Don’t believe these people who suddenly start to care about Iranian lives by taking the regime’s side and also don’t believe US officials when they say they do all these for our freedom.
It would be foolish for the Iranians to agree to that. But useful idiots will be useful idiots.
They also said the US demands are completely unreasonable, which you conveniently left out.
Can you give me some official sources that explain what exactly was negotiated and demanded on both sides?
I want to avoid linking particular sources because I know it's easy to call this or that biased etc. but it's easy to look up even in Israeli sources.
> The US demands were for Iran to give up all its offensive capabilities
What's your point?
Obviously the leaders of both our countries want what’s best for all of us and always tell us the truth, right?
Most Persians I know will support just about anyone who will go against the regime, there were huge protests all over the world recently by the Iranian diaspora calling for the regime to be destroyed after tens of thousands of protesters were murdered by the regime all over Iran.
The only reason to enrich uranium to 60% like Iran was doing is for nuclear weapons purposes.
Building military defenses against crazed, genocidal, racial supremacists who routinely fire missiles at your country seems more like sensible forward planning to me rather than evidence of a guilty conscience.
Overall the goal is not to stop Iran's nuclear program, though that is part of it. The goal would be to install a government in Iran that is friendly to Israel and the USA, or, failing that, to completely destroy their economy and defense such that they effectively can't act outside their own borders.
Which parts of Lebanon does Israel occupy?
So you're saying Israel's occupation of Lebanon amounts to 4,000 square metres? About the area of an athletics track, I guess? (Not counting the bit inside the athletics track.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Lebanese_confl...
> In October, UNIFIL peacekeepers conducted a geospatial survey of a concrete T-wall erected by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) southwest of Yaroun. The survey confirmed that the wall crossed the Blue Line, rendering more than 4,000 square metres of Lebanese territory inaccessible to the Lebanese people.
And what exactly is Israel doing there, on that land the size of an athletics track? Something very nefarious?
But I think we're established the answer to the question I originally asked. Thanks for participating.
In Syria, Israel had a buffer zone since 1974. Last year they said the agreement had "collapsed" and went on to occupy even more territoru: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/26/israel-carries-out-...
Palestine is occupied.
They also have (had?) a very active ballistic missile program, and have conducted implosion experiments.
The constellation of evidence is quite clear: Iran is a threshold nuclear state with all the pieces necessary to credibly threaten the region (and soon the US homeland) with nuclear weapons.
We've gone from, "The amazing Islamic Republic of Iran isn't even capable of building deliverable nuclear weapons and they have lots of peaceful reasons to do enrichment to 60%!" to "Yeah OK, they are capable and they are indeed enriching Uranium for their weapons program--hey, look over here! USA and Israel!!!"
By the way, I am a lot more worried about Israel and its actual nuclear stockpile that has zero oversight.
Iran regularly threatens to destroy Israel, the opposite is not the case.
Iranian officials publicly refused to give up their nuclear program, no need to trust the US here.
They could have named the DOD the "Department Of Peace", instead they called it the "Department Of War", showing their true face and trajectory.
At this point it is really the people of the US to rise up and implement a Regime Change from within to change things for the better.
1. The U.S. and Iran had already negotiated and signed a nuclear agreement between our countries but Trump reneged on the already-negotiated agreement.
2. Trump claimed that his previous attacks on Iran within the last year “completely and totally obliterated” their nuclear program, “obliterated like nobody’s ever seen before” - both direct Trump quotes. Trump was quite clear that Iran’s nuclear program had already been destroyed like nothing had ever been destroyed before.Yeah, I agree that was probably a bad idea, doesn't make what I stated above any less true.
> 2. Trump claimed that his previous attacks on Iran within the last year “completely and totally obliterated” their nuclear program, “obliterated like nobody’s ever seen before” - both direct Trump quotes. Trump was quite clear that Iran’s nuclear program had already been destroyed like nothing had ever been destroyed before.
Yes...Trump lies all the time, that's nothing new.
Yes it does, it makes everything you said untrue. You stated Iran doesn't want to give up its nuclear programme, not true. Iran in fact already did agree to it, Trump then threw that in the trash.
Second, it shows the Nuclear threat wasn't the issue because he had a solution for it and threw it away. Then bombed Iran destroying it ostensibly, then continued bombing for regime change. So it's not obvious negotiations failed over nuclear which you stated, because it wasn't about nuclear.
Negotiations failed over dismantling Iranian power, mostly its ballistic weapons. i.e. give up weapons and make yourself defenseless to maintain peace. Like the Palestinians did with Israel, after which they're still being murdered daily, aid is still being blocked, and the west bank is increasingly being colonised. In other words an absurd ask from a sovereign country with multiple expansionist neighbours including one that bombed you and virtually all its neighbours last year.
JCPOA didn't fully eliminate the nuclear program, it mostly just kept it from getting too far along.
> Second, it shows the Nuclear threat wasn't the issue because he had a solution for it and threw it away. Then bombed Iran destroying it ostensibly, then continued bombing for regime change. So it's not obvious negotiations failed over nuclear which you stated, because it wasn't about nuclear.
Nuclear isn't the only issue either, but Iranian officials made it clear they would not give up their nuclear program.
> Negotiations failed over dismantling Iranian power, mostly its ballistic weapons. i.e. give up weapons and make yourself defenseless to maintain peace.
Iran isn't interested in maintaining peace, they want to continue destabilizing the entire region.
> Like the Palestinians did with Israel, after which they're still being murdered daily, aid is still being blocked, and the west bank is increasingly being colonised.
Last I checked Hamas has refused to give up their weapons.
> In other words an absurd ask from a sovereign country with multiple expansionist neighbours including one that bombed you and virtually all its neighbours last year.
Iran has repeatedly threatened the destruction of Israel, it's not surprising that Israel and the US are taking those threats seriously.
> Nuclear isn't the only issue either, but Iranian officials made it clear they would not give up their nuclear program.
False, they were very clear they would give it up. Are you at all aware of what Iran has been saying through its diplomatic channels? Listen to what the neutral parties are saying, it's clear on this.
> Iran isn't interested in maintaining peace, they want to continue destabilizing the entire region.
Alright time to stop talking to you. You've got a very black/white child like view on geopolitics.
> Last I checked Hamas has refused to give up their weapons.
Hamas had one lever to pull: hostages. Hamas gave the last tens of them up in return for a cease-fire to stop the killing of at the time exceeding 100 thousand civilians (admitted by Israel itself), but Israeli killing and expansion has only continued. Iran set-up the deal, US tore its own deal apart and bombed it. Do you think these are parties to make another deal with, to give up any leverage you still have in the hope they won't reneg later and leave you worse off? Don't be silly.
> Iran has repeatedly threatened the destruction of Israel, it's not surprising that Israel and the US are taking those threats seriously.
As have Israel and the US, does it warrant a strike on these countries? Don't be ridiculous, it's rhetoric to the base. What matters is policy. Israel has expanded its borders, Iran hasn't. Israel has bombed Iran and assasinated its leadership, the reverse isn't true. Israel and US reneged on their agreements that Iran upheld.
Iran's nuclear program has essentially always been a weapons program, their public statements about their nuclear program being only for peaceful purposes have never been true.
> False, they were very clear they would give it up. Are you at all aware of what Iran has been saying through its diplomatic channels? Listen to what the neutral parties are saying, it's clear on this.
Just listen to the statements Iranian officials have made in regards to giving up enrichment[0], their position has been that they will never give it up.
> Hamas had one lever to pull: hostages.
Hamas holding hostages wasn't helping their position.
> stop the killing of at the time exceeding 100 thousand civilians (admitted by Israel itself)
When has Israel admitted this?
> Iran set-up the deal, US tore its own deal apart and bombed it. Do you think these are parties to make another deal with, to give up any leverage you still have in the hope they won't reneg later and leave you worse off? Don't be silly.
I think tearing up the deal was probably a bad idea, but Iran didn't stop building ballistic missiles or funding proxies either so it's not like the deal stopped their hostile actions entirely.
> As have Israel and the US, does it warrant a strike on these countries? Don't be ridiculous, it's rhetoric to the base. What matters is policy.
Israel and the US have never advocated for the destruction of Iran in the way Iran advocates for the destruction of Israel.
> Israel has expanded its borders, Iran hasn't.
Israel's border situation is a huge mess, but that's largely due to Palestinians refusing to in good faith negotiate a peace deal with Israel that would actually establish proper boarders. What does that have to do with Iran?
> Israel has bombed Iran and assasinated its leadership, the reverse isn't true.
Just because Iran doesn't have that capability doesn't mean they wouldn't if they did.
[0] https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2026/02/08/ir...
> The 'solution' explicitly allowed (by 2031) unlimited enrichment, burying centrifuges, and purchasing unlimited amounts of AD. Then no US admin could have possibly prevented an Iranian nuke.
It was an agreement for 15 years. It doesn't at all 'explicitly allow unlimited enrichment' after the 15 year period. It just means that the JCPOA's limits would drop, and the regular NPT limits would still apply, including monitoring and inspections, which allows civilian but not military enrichment, and allows the US' military options with full transparency as opposed to Iran not letting in any inspections in the almost 8 years since Trump broke the deal.
Plus with this deal you'd have control for 15 years, and a 15 year window to negotiate additional safeguards as you see fit, or resort to military options as they do now. While negotiating this deal you'd have an assurance they aren't and can't build a bomb, and can ramp up pressure, and maintain sincerity to allow the other side of the table to agree to further demands.
Instead Trump threw this control away in 12 years ahead of schedule, removing ALL safeguards for the last 8 years and next 4 years, threw away ALL trust in the US's sincerity to make and keep deals making future deals less likely, and making a military intervention much more likely to be required. It's an absurd idea to have cancelled this deal with the view to control Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions, but it makes total sense for a president that wanted to attack Iran later down the line and needed arguments to do so, contrary entirely to what he campaigned on which is that Dems would get into a military conflict with Iran and he wouldn't.
> Once the faction who tried to make an ally of Iran got voted out, JCPOA was going to go.
Absolutely absurd to think Democrats tried to make Iran into an ally. Diplomatic engagement with Iran (which is done by all parties and their enemies, e.g. China, Soviets/Russians etc) is completely different from making a mortal enemy into an ally. Just absurd.
> JCPOA was going to go. Negotiations then failed cuz Iran demanded 20% enrichment which was ridiculous.
Firstly the 20% was prohibited in the JCPOA. I hope I need not spend any further words and the picture is obvious to you now? If it's true that as you claim that, if Iran had accepted 20%, that it would've led to a successful negotiated deal with Trump, how idiotic is Trump then to have thrown away a deal 8 years ago that already capped it at 3.5%?
So if true, your argument makes no sense. But it's not even true. The mediators between US/Iran in the diplomatic talks in the last weeks noted explicitly and clearly that Iran was willing to agree to zero stockpiling and zero accumulation, and converting existing stockpiles into irreversible fuel, and letting in inspectors in full. i.e. zero existential crisis for its neighbours. They weren't willing to give up their drone/missile program, i.e. become a defenseless country ready to be eaten up a few years later with no recourse, i.e. maintain fighting power without being an existential threat to anyone. That's an entirely natural for a sovereign state.
It's entirely reasonable to accept this deal if you want to operate in international law. If you want to rip up an existing deal to prevent a weapon, then refuse another deal to prevent such a weapon, then lie about an imminent threat of nuclear weapons which your own intelligence agencies refute, and then attack illegally under international law with no international support, then yes by all means go for it. But don't think it's not obvious that it's all a big and obvious lie, which you seem to parrot cluelessly.
Second, had NPT been enough, why was JCPOA necessary? Because NPT was not near enough to stop a determined state. NPT 'limits' do not limit enrichment. They just state enrichment must be done for civilian purposes and leave no enforcement mechanism. JCPOA also had no real enforcement mechanism starting in 2026. Iran could have simply taken all the money, buy weapons (legally), reach the legal max (which is basically infinity in 2031, a bit less earlier), and pressed forwards immediately. There was simply no way to enforce (some people think _this_ operation is too risky! Now lets give Iran over a trillion dollars and years to prepare).
Third, you're just wrong about current negotiations. Iran explicitly demanded 20%[0], beyond the JCPOA and with no civilian use.
Look, JCPOA debates always end in the same way. The advocates are asked how the original deal was enforceable in any way past 2031 (or even 2026) and they have to deploy word salad because the actual answer is 'Iran could have easily built a nuke, inspectors just allow us to see it but they would have been no way to do something about it'. It would be more honest if many of them just admitted they wanted to allow Iranian nukes.
[0] https://xcancel.com/laurnorman/status/2028050672583618946
The US then lied through their teeth to the security council about wanting to conduct a humanitarian operation and instead acted as the rebels' air force, helping them win and subsequently leaving the country in utter ruin.
why are you lying
The question is really whether negotiations were going on in good faith with the actual goal of realistic compromise.
None of us know that side, I would assume.
It was pretty clear the negotiations had stalled based on statements put out by Iranian officials.
You don't go and rename a whole federal department to 'Department of War' when you don't intend to get into wars.
Iranian officials made public statements refusing to give up their nuclear weapons program so they weren't negotiating in good faith either. Terrorists like the Iranian regime can never be allowed to have access to nuclear weapons for obvious reasons.
You do not enrich uranium to 60% like Iran was doing unless you have a nuclear weapons program.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_United_States_trea...