> Although the war in Iran is very obviously justified,
Wait, what now?
Wait, what now?
[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/06/experts-agree-ir...
Separately it's a poor argument to say well Iran's nuclear capabilities were obliterated (they were certainly damaged if nothing else) therefore further attacks are unjustified when Iran could build up missile defense, missile attack, and drone capabilities and make a future incursion to stop their nuclear program impossible without extreme destruction to the Middle East and the rest of global trade.
Which, you know, was what they were actually doing. Hence the missile attacks. We just caught them before we couldn't actually do much about it without significant loss of life and equipment.
Random, unprovoked attacks by other countries only underscores Iran's need to build nuclear weapons. Mission accomplished.
Iran can obviously hide nuclear weapons and uranium enrichment activities from the inspectors. Unless of course you believe the US intelligence agency and inspection agencies are capable of perfect intelligence. :)
> Random, unprovoked attacks by other countries only underscores Iran's need to build nuclear weapons. Mission accomplished.
Doesn't make sense. You're ignoring Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and other geostrategic concerns. Even if Iran wasn't trying to build a nuclear weapon they were stockpiling missiles such that they could seize control over the Straight of Hormuz and ensure tolls were paid to their autocratic regime. It's beyond bizarre to me that someone can, presumably in an honest way, think that this war just randomly started and was unprovoked. Incompatible world views.
On the other hand, the US just forced Israel to the negotiating table with Lebanon with a single tweet. Hopefully Israel and Lebanon can work together to rid themselves of Hezbollah and restore peace. We know the UN peacekeepers certainly couldn't help here.
>Hopefully Israel and Lebanon can work together to rid themselves of Hezbollah and restore peace.We know the UN peacekeepers certainly couldn't help here.
Case in point - the historic collaboration between Israel and Lebanon was what created the context in which Hezbollah first came into existence, and UN peacekeepers have largely been ineffective there because the IDF kept firing on them. The ceasefire agreed to a week ago doesn't push for Israeli withdrawal in any term or really any other measures for accountability on their part or the US', so 'peace' in this context is effectively just capitulation to both those parties' hegemony, I suppose because it's a law of nature or something.
It worked. Even the first Trump administration certified that Iran was upholding their end of the deal.
Then Trump unilaterally cancelled it over the objection of all the other parties and put back the sanctions. Iran resumed pursuing nuclear weapons.
This clearly shows that war is not necessary to get Iran to stop. They were even offering significant concessions in the negotiations just before this war according to a UK advisor who was in attendance, but the US was not actually interested in a diplomatic solution and was just using the negotiations to make Iran think the attack was not imminent.
In my lived experience, Iran and by extension Shia Islam (as it is very senior Shia Islam leaders making religious proclamations/justifications declaring it) has been at war with my country my entire life and sponsored random attacks against Americans and also non-Americans out of the hopes of weakening the US to promote their 45+ year vocally stated goal of the death/destruction of my country. They have ordered hits around the world on people that wrong speak about Islam such as Rushdie. And they kidnap/rape/murder little girls in their nation if they don't wear the proper hats. These are Islamist religious fanatics intent on reshaping the world to match Shia Islams world view. Their 'moderates' ordered 30,000 of their own people gunned down in the streets, then went to hospitals and murdered nurses and doctors that treated injured civilians. That is the 'moderate' position in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The progress of their enrichment program is purely a product of this administration's failed diplomacy.
Comparing Iran to North Korea is something someone with no actual understanding of Iran would do. Iran is not a hermit kingdom.
That was your comparison, not mine. My comparison was that once they obtain a nuclear weapon, there's nothing we can do anymore. They can obtain more, and then use them as a threat to tax the Straight, further enriching their regime, &c. That's what has happened to North Korea (minus the strategic position and of course it's slightly different due to China).
The JCPOA wasn't effective for two reasons:
1. We weren't getting the cooperation we needed in the first place to examine nuclear sites.
2. We shouldn't have to pay off Iran to not get nuclear weapons. Why do they get to be treated differently than any other country?
1. We had anytime/anywhere access to their nuclear facilities and 24 day access to any square inch of their country. They never violated that part of the agreement and it's also silly to think intelligence didn't already know where all the facilities were.
2. The payments were a trivial part of the deal. It's especially ironic given this administration keeps offering payments to end the current conflict.
The reality is any deal we sign today is going to be substantially worse in every way for us than the JCPOA was.
> Why do they get to be treated differently than any other country?
This is the crux of the thing though. North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, and even South Africa all had successful and clandestine nuclear programs without any military intervention. Going to war with Iran is completely arbitrary - there is no direct threat to the US, and we did it without any cooperation with any of the countries actually dependent on Gulf oil.
Or maybe we just learned our lesson. Is the world better for each of those countries having nuclear weapons? I think not. Why permit yet another one to join the club? Why does Iran get special treatment? Do we need a JCPOA with all other countries, to pay them off as well to not get nuclear weapons? If you are in favor of nuclear non-proliferation you have to become a circus star to be able to jump through all of the contradictory hoops needed to justify somehow giving Iran special treatment or suggesting it's ok for them to have a nuclear bomb.
Calling the war completely arbitrary is intellectually dishonest and pointless in a discussion.
> and we did it without any cooperation with any of the countries actually dependent on Gulf oil.
As quoted by German defense minister Boris Pistorius:
“What does … Donald Trump expect a handful or two handfuls of European frigates to do in the Strait of Hormuz that the powerful U.S. Navy cannot do?” [1]
There is no country or coalition of countries that can do anything about this. They lack any meaningful military capabilities to stop Iran. What exactly is there to cooperate on? Iran is already sanctioned by the EU [2] for example. If we think it needs to be done, we just do it. It's not up to those who have no ability to do anything about it to decide whether we get to do something or not. I don't agree with how Trump has handled that aspect of the war, but the grandstanding and pearl clutching over a non-existent and not to come into existence coalition against Iran is mostly falling on deaf ears.
[1] https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5786066-trump-allies-stra...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/too-early-talk-abo...
> If we think it needs to be done, we just do it. It's not up to those who have no ability to do anything about it to decide whether we get to do something or not.
Says who? I don't think anyone outside of a small group of hyper-Imperialists actually believe this.
Even if I bought the premise that a war is preferable to the JCPOA, what's the actual end goal? Bombing Iran into submission was always a delusionary idea. Taking and occupying the country is the only realistic, long-term path if we want to go down this hardline path.
I didn't suggest it was purely non-proliferation (I'm assuming you are talking about the war itself) - I was just responding to the JCPOA aspect.. We partner with nuclear states all the time, such as the United Kingdom and France. We're even partnering with Pakistan now to help facilitate negotiations with Iran.
> Even if I bought the premise that a war is preferable to the JCPOA, what's the actual end goal? Bombing Iran into submission was always a delusionary idea. Taking and occupying the country is the only realistic, long-term path if we want to go down this hardline path.
Now we're talking. I really am not totally sure about what the best response here was. But I'm also very much of the opinion that this has been war-gamed to death by the Pentagon. Perhaps we had some faulty assumptions. Perhaps it's still too early. Even today I was reading that there was a leaked internal communication where the Iranian ruling regime is becoming increasingly concerned about the economy due to the blockade. There's a lot to discuss here in general.
They shouldn't have needed a JCPOA anyway - why was Iran pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place? The US didn't attack Iran in the early or mid-2000s, for example. Do we have a JCPOA style agreement with Brazil, or Thailand, or Italy? No. They just, as good faith partners in nuclear non-proliferation simply don't pursue nuclear weapons. Why is Iran different? Why does the rest of the world have to pay them to not pursue nuclear weapons?
This current war is why.
The JCPOA excuse can quietly and safely be discarded. It's a bad argument.
And you feel this war is going to get them to stop?