Hacker News Reader

Comment by antman | Hacker News Reader

Nobody credible said or believed Iran was making nuclear weapons. Iran had made it a fatwa against the Islamic law to develop such weapons and Obama had referenced that. They also dont believe bolivian fishermen could reach the US with stocks of drugs, they dont believe venezuela’s president was a hidden drug kingpin, and they also dont believe that Cuba is a credible threat that needs to be blockaded to the stone age.

These are power plays to signal that world dominance is not decaying but in case of Iran it has backfired and pushes China’s narrative as a pillar of stability.

View on HN

The strongest case for developing nuclear weapons is our lack of invasions of nuclear powers.

It's funny how he tore up a nuclear arms embargo / agreement and then acted as though they (Iran) were a threat that couldn't be tolerated.

Common saying: "They sell us the sickness and then sell us the cure."

Nuclear weapons have been a strictly self defense capability since 1945 I don't know why the White House is crying about Iran getting them.

> I don't know why the White House is crying about Iran getting them.

How does one not see a problem with terrorists(i.e. the Islamic regime in Iran) getting nuclear weapons?

For many people "terrorists" are the one bombing and invading, which means that Iran is currently victim of terrorism.

After you say why you don't have a problem with the Israeli terrorists having them already.

> After you say why you don't have a problem with the Israeli terrorists having them already.

There are no "Israeli terrorists" in control of Israel's nuclear weapons, the government of Israel is certainly not controlled by terrorists like the Iranian government is.

Israel also does not have a policy of destroying Iran, while Iran does have a clear policy of destroying Israel[0].

There's a clear difference in their ideologies as well, the Islamic government of Iran clearly believes in dangerous ideologies like Martyrdom and Jihad(holy war), organizations with these sort of ideological beliefs should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons because typical deterrence strategies like mutually assured destruction are unlikely to be effective.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Irani...

What is the definition of a terrorist and why does the destruction and genocide in Gaza not fall under that term? Cite your sources when you define terrorism, please.

Also, are you just patently unaware? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel

Also you didn't state why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons.

> What is the definition of a terrorist and why does the destruction and genocide in Gaza not fall under that term?

There is certainly no genocide in Gaza, the destruction is clearly the end result of a war started by Hamas. In fact Hamas did have genocidal intent in their attacks on Oct 7th but did not have the military capability to carry out that intent. Israel on the other hand clearly has that military capability but not the intent.

> Cite your sources when you define terrorism, please.

There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. Obviously that cause problems. [0]

> Also, are you just patently unaware? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel

It's a vague expression without a clear definition.

[0] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-49238-9_...

"There is certainly no genocide in Gaza" -- you are directly contradicting a formal UN Commission of Inquiry finding from September 2025. This is not an opinion piece or a fringe report. The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory concluded after a two-year investigation that Israel committed four of the five genocidal acts defined under the 1948 Genocide Convention, and that genocidal intent was established through direct statements from Israeli leadership including the Prime Minister, President, and Defence Minister. Your claim that Israel lacks genocidal intent is directly contradicted by the Commission's finding that genocidal intent was "the only reasonable inference" from both the statements of Israeli leadership and the pattern of conduct of Israeli forces. [0]

You said there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. So let me use the official definition from the United States government.

The US State Department definition under 22 USC 2656f(d) defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." [1]

The US domestic terrorism statute under 18 USC 2331(5) defines it as activities that "appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." [2]

You say there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, then said nothing to explain how you applied the term with such confidence to the Iranian government in your original post. By your own admission, you invoked a contested label selectively against one state while exempting another. That is a political preference dressed up as a principled argument, not anything of rigorous analysis.

Now apply that to Gaza. The same UN Commission found that Israel deliberately targeted civilians, deliberately destroyed healthcare and education infrastructure, imposed starvation conditions, and directly targeted children. That is premeditated. It is politically motivated. It is violence against noncombatants. By the U.S. government's definition, it fits.

On Greater Israel, calling it "vague" does not explain away the fact that sitting members of the current Israeli government have explicitly stated their intent to annex Palestinian territory.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said at a Jerusalem Day rally four days ago: "The time has come to finally erase the lines that separate Areas A, B, and C. The entire Land of Israel is ours." He also declared the war "must end with the expansion of the borders of the State of Israel" and called on Netanyahu to order the IDF to prepare for "full occupation of the Gaza Strip" and establish Israeli settlements there. [3]

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir stated from the Temple Mount: "Conquer all of Gaza, declare sovereignty over the entire Strip, eliminate every Hamas member, and encourage voluntary emigration. This is the only way." [4]

These are not fringe backbenchers. These are cabinet ministers in the current Israeli government. This is declared policy, not a vague expression.

You still have not answered why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons.

[0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-c... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-11... [3] https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-896309 [4] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/on-temple-mount...

> The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory

The UN(which is itself a party that has perpetuated the conflict through mismanagement of the UNRWA) has essentially zero credibility in regard to anything involving Israel[0].

> You say there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, then said nothing to explain how you applied the term with such confidence to the Iranian government in your original post.

The Iranian government is engaged in both direct and indirect terrorism throughout the region by virtually all commonly used definitions including the ones you listed. They have directly attacked virtually all countries in the region. They are driven by dangerous ideologies of Martyrdom and Jihad.

> The same UN Commission found that Israel deliberately targeted civilians, deliberately destroyed healthcare and education infrastructure, imposed starvation conditions, and directly targeted children. That is premeditated. It is politically motivated. It is violence against noncombatants. By the U.S. government's definition, it fits.

A highly biased UN commission claiming something doesn't actually make it true.[1] Israel does not have a policy of deliberately targeting civilians, although in a war there is often collateral damage. This is why properly analyzing intent is so important.

> These are not fringe backbenchers. These are cabinet ministers in the current Israeli government. This is declared policy, not a vague expression.

Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich are highly unpopular in Israel and have been largely excluded from making war related decisions, Israel has a parliamentary system of government which makes it easier for extremists to get elected than in a system of government like the United States, their statements should certainly not be taken as official Israeli government policy.

> You still have not answered why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Legally they are not a party to the NPT[2]. From a practical standpoint they are a small country facing existential threats to their existence so it's not surprising they would want to have nuclear weapons as a deterrence.

[0] https://unwatch.org/pillay-commission/

[1] https://unwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/UN-Watch-Rebu...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...

Because Iran is an extremist theocracy who literally regards USA as Satan and openly calls for its destruction. Pretty obvious.

"Satan" as in the original meaning of the word "adversary of god". They are not calling you Satan as a way to say evil, but as a way to say "adversary of our faith".

> Nobody credible said or believed Iran was making nuclear weapons.

Then why were they enriching uranium to levels well above what is needed for civilian purposes? You simply don't do that unless you intend to make nuclear weapons at some point.

> Iran had made it a fatwa against the Islamic law to develop such weapons and Obama had referenced that.

Iran obviously has the ability to lie, and regularly does so.

Many countries have nuclear power without any enrichment capability. Iran could try not being a pariah state and buy enriched uranium like many countries do. The only real reason to spend so much money and endure so much hardships for uranium enrichment is if they wanted at least the option to make nuclear weapons.

They definitely wanted the option, that’s indisputable really.

There is still lots of evidence that Iran started enriching uranium towards weapons grade over the past decade. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64810145 Largely a legacy of Trump's sanctions failing to get a nuclear deal the first term and back firing. You'd have to be naive to think they don't want a bomb in the first place before that though.

Saddam played the same game where they pretended they just wanted nuclear for energy, even though they were a petrol state... which is why in 1981 Iran helped bomb Iraq's reactors (where Iran teamed up with Israel to do so) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

If Iran didn't believe Iraq's peaceful nuclear intentions, I'm not sure why anyone would believe Iran then buying tons of uranium from Russia was any different. Not to mention building underground lairs to enrich it while also building ICBMs.

The best way to thread the needle I can see was that maintaining highly enriched uranium was a deterrance/bargaining strategy. Doesn't break the fatwa but sends a message. Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight.

> Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight.

The JCPOA obviated the need for a nuke. It was a reasonable assumption that the US would honor its side of the agreement under the doctrine of continuity. Even in hindsight, you cannot have productive diplomacy without good faith

> The JCPOA obviated the need for a nuke.

Iran really had no need for a nuke in the first place if they weren't constantly provoking the entire region, unless that need is destroying Israel.

> Even in hindsight, you cannot have productive diplomacy without good faith

Iran never really negotiates in good faith either, the JCPOA didn't really do anything at all to restrict their ballistic missile program and terrorist proxies.

> Doesn't break the fatwa but sends a message. Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight.

I think Israel and probably the US interpreted this tactic as Iran stalling until they Iran had the technology to build a nuclear ICBM.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com