Separately that doesn't resolve the other issues, funding militant groups, &c.
When are you talking about and what is that based on? It was the US that withdrew; the other countries continued. US intelligence concluded that Iran had no nuclear weapons program (or maybe, no active one; I don't recall).
> you'd also have to say you 100% trust American intelligence to verify
Nope, the plan was for the IEA to do their thing with on-the-ground inspectors, sensors, etc. As just one example, nuclear materials leak radiation and they can find indications of it in air, soil, etc., around faciltiies. Edit: Also, many other countries were involved and looking closely, including European powers and Israel.
They'd just move the research to clandestine or military facilities. They're not stupid. Countries like Iran know how to play these games and they use our own legal mechanisms against us all the time.
Separately we shouldn't have to have a JCPOA in the first place, they can just not pursue nuclear weapons like almost every other country on the planet.
> we shouldn't have to have a JCPOA in the first place, they can just not pursue nuclear weapons like almost every other country on the planet.
Other countries do pursue and have nuclear weapons. Iran has not yet created a full nuclear weapons program - or hadn't before the current war.
Iran, being under constant threat from the US and Israel, with open calls to attack Iran for decades; seeing two neighbors recently deposed by the US (Iraq and Afghanistan); and having had their own government deposed and replaced by a US-friendly one (Mosaddegh in 1953); under constant threat from neighbors and the region (Iraq invaded in the 1980s, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states are open enemies, Israel of course); may believe that they need nuclear weapons to survive.
Is there another country in a similar position, with the resources to develop nuclear weapons, that doesn't have them? North Korea and Israel both made that choice in similar circumstances.
The US 'nuclear umbrella' covers its allies around the world, a very effective non-proliferation tool. Otherwise, I imagine South Korea, Japan, many NATO countries would build them - there is already discussion of it in the former two countries.
Don't care then. The premise of having to have the agreement in the first place is faulty, so arguments about who was following it and in what sneaky way are simply irrelevant.
> Other countries do pursue and have nuclear weapons.
So should more countries get them then? Are you against nuclear non-proliferation? If you want more countries to get them let's start with Israel and Saudi Arabia, then move to South Korea and Japan, and let's load them up in the Baltic states too so Russia doesn't think twice.
> Iran has not yet created a full nuclear weapons program -
Then what was the point of the JCPOA?
> or hadn't before the current war.
They hadn't as the war is going on either just to be clear. There seems to be this cargo culted comment that they're going to have one now. They won't. We will bomb it no matter what.
> Iran, being under constant threat from the US and Israel, with open calls to attack Iran for decades; seeing two neighbors recently deposed by the US (Iraq and Afghanistan); and having had their own government deposed and replaced by a US-friendly one (Mosaddegh in 1953); under constant threat from neighbors and the region (Iraq invaded in the 1980s, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states are open enemies, Israel of course); may believe that they need nuclear weapons to survive.
Right, everyone is bad here but poor lil ole' Iran. The US was in Afghanistan after Bin Laden. It was in Iraq after Saddam. The whole world, despite Iranian delusions of grandeur, doesn't revolve around them. Other countries are also under constant threat from Iran (US, Israel, Gulf States, more) as they fund militants, murder people, load up on missiles and drones and fire them indiscriminately, and try to build nuclear bombs.
What aside from their total annihilation or subjugation would ever convince you of your (Israel's) safety?
They might have blown up due to the Israeli malware incident.
So apparently, we've yet to do anything to prevent them from doing it.
We've just killed children.
They killed more than 30,000 of their own people including children and support terrorist regimes in multiple countries that also kill children.
> There's zero evidence its less possible
On the other hand we bombed the nuclear facilities so what increase in nuclear weapons capability do they have that you are thinking about here? If there's something that has changed I'd be curious to read about it or your thoughts since that would change my opinion.
The evidence we bombed their nuclear facilities is essentially this administration telling us we bombed their nuclear facilities.
This administration does not have a track record of providing the public with honest assessments of their success.
If we've successfully stopped them from developing a nuclear weapon, which was stated as the point of our preemptive aggression, I'd need a very good reason why we continue to spend billions attacking them.
No my take is we do it by accident and they do it on purpose and at a much larger scale and instead of pearl clutching about the US doing it on accident you should be pearl clutching about Iran doing it. I didn’t bring it up, but anytime someone brings up this whole “US killed kids” I’m happy to remind everyone that Iran is far worse.
> The evidence we bombed their nuclear facilities is essentially this administration telling us we bombed their nuclear facilities.
So? Do you not believe anything anyone says unless you see it for yourself?
> If we've successfully stopped them from developing a nuclear weapon, which was stated as the point of our preemptive aggression, I'd need a very good reason why we continue to spend billions attacking them.
Stopping the development of a nuclear weapon is an important goal but not the only one. We keep defending ourselves because they keep doing things like launching rockets at Kuwait, or shooting at American ships, or supporting those committing genocide or murder in Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Yemen.
There is a very simple solution. Iran stops funding these groups, stops murdering their own people, stop launching rockets, and stops trying to build nuclear weapons. Once they do that and behave responsibility like just about every other country on the planet there aren’t any problems.
Why is it that they can’t just stop doing these things?
"Hey, we're not as bad a literal terrorist regime!" is not a metric by which I think we should measure our own country.
I'd believe we'd actually accomplished our goal of stopping their nuclear program if this specific administration hadn't told us, before this attack, we had successfully stopped their nuclear program with a previous attack. Once you've lied to me once, my standard of evidence is a great deal higher than "trust us, bro." and this administration has already shown incompetence at judging the effectiveness of their attacks (or shown a willingness to lie to us about it).
The entire problem with this strategy, from day one, was the completely ahistorical belief that we could punish a country into behaving exactly as we want, in a way that specifically aligns with our interests.
Bullying nations has a tendency to harden them against cooperation and negotiation, as we've seen with Iran.
Ok and they did theirs with malicious and clear purpose. Yikes!
> This wasn't the unfortunate result of a necessary attack on a valid target. This was the result of stupidity.
No. Iran and their militant proxies know that we don't attack civilian targets on purpose. That's why they set up facilities, military equipment, or hide combatants behind children or in hospitals and such because they know we don't want to kill innocent people. Hamas or Iran will tell you this as part of their doctrine.
So think about it. You've got the US and allies, Hamas, Hezbollah or whatever, Iran, and they're all saying "The US and western allies don't intentionally kill innocent people" and then there's you who is like sitting here complaining about it and now it's just "incompetence". Give me a break.
> "Hey, we're not as bad a literal terrorist regime!" is not a metric by which I think we should measure our own country.
Nobody is using that metric except you. The US admitted the mistake and apologized at a minimum. I believe there was some talk of compensation though I'm not sure where that has landed. Probably tough to do because the Iranian regime would steal any money we gave to the families.
But hey I do agree with you, Iran's government is a terrorist regime.
> Bullying nations has a tendency to harden them against cooperation and negotiation, as we've seen with Iran.
Well sure but they were never cooperating anyway. If they were, they wouldn't have been taking the actions they've been taking. What does cooperation look like? It looks like not murdering tens of thousands of your own people, it looks like not pursuing nuclear weapons, it looks like not funding militant groups who murder innocent people throughout the region, and it looks like not building up gigantic stockpiles of missiles and drones and then launching them at every country around you.
Iran is the only country doing this stuff. Why aren't they cooperating with the rest of the world peacefully?
This has been heavily reported on and no counter-story has been proffered.
You introduced a whataboutalism. I pointed out whataboutalisms are ridiculous when it comes to dead children.
The frustrating part of all of this is we had a working agreement with Iran, with numerous mechanisms to ensure compliance, that was torn up because this administration, without any offered evidence, said Iran wasn't in compliance. And this was despite multiple international partners disagreeing and saying they were absolutely complying.
Sure, but you should be talking Iran killing people since they killed many more and did so on purpose instead of on accident. You keep using the term incompetence because you have an axe to grind. Actions matter but intentions get a say too.
> You introduced a whataboutalism.
Well I'm certainly not going to, where I see it happen, let people just dance around talking about US "incompetence" and ignoring Iranian purposeful murder as they try to denigrate my country for their own political aims. These people shouldn't be your political football and you should be more focused on Iranian action.
> The frustrating part of all of this is we had a working agreement with Iran
Why do they need a special snowflake agreement else they build nuclear weapons? Weren't they signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty? Should other countries start building nuclear weapons so they can get some sort of concession from the United States? Why does the US have to give these concessions and not the entire world since it's in everyone's interest that we don't have every country on the planet building nuclear fucking bombs and maybe using them? Did we forget we don't want that or something?
I have no control of, or say, in how Iran operates.
I am a US Citizen who votes in the US and who is concerned with the actions my government takes on my behalf.
If Iran shouldn't "need an agreement" not to build nuclear weapons, what exactly is our current aggression seeking to accomplish? How does it end? How do we know its over?
When there is no longer a single person in Iran?
I didn't say you did. I'm just focused on their wrongdoings and I'm not interested in some accident that the US was involved in. We accidentally blew something up? Dang that sucks. Let's talk about how awful Iran is instead and focus on that because that's what matters.
> I have no control of, or say, in how Iran operates.
What does that matter? You also have no control or say of how Israel operates. Therefore you can't criticize them or be concerned with their actions? You also have no say in Ukraine or Russia.
> If Iran shouldn't "need an agreement" not to build nuclear weapons, what exactly is our current aggression seeking to accomplish?
Sorry I'm not following. They shouldn't need an agreement to behave like the rest of the signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, yet they want an agreement special treatment, and still develop nuclear weapons in secret. Partly what our defensive operations are seeking to accomplish is to stop them from building nuclear weapons because... they're trying to build them, aren't honoring the NNPT, are murdering their own people, and murdering other people throughout the Middle East. Like why are you so confused about this? Are you unaware of these activities or something?
How about this, can you walk me through what your understanding of Iranian funded militias in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon is? Just at a high level how do you understand those various situations?
> How does it end? How do we know it's over?
Who knows?
> When there is no longer a single person in Iran?
No that doesn't make any sense.
Our military murdered 170 children due to incompetence.
I am aware of Iran's activities. Everyone is. The regime is murderous, and hostile to our allies in the region.
And absolutely nothing we are doing, right now, has changed or will change that.
You’re calling it incompetence because you have an axe to grind. The US military simply does not intentionally murder children. Everybody knows that including Iran! That’s why these guys put their military equipment next to civilian infrastructure. Why is that I’m telling you this, the military tells you this, European militaries would tell you this, Iran tells you this, and yet you alone are insistent that it is incompetence and not an accident?
> I am aware of Iran's activities. Everyone is. The regime is murderous, and hostile to our allies in the region.
Good let’s focus the conversation there since that’s what is important.
> And absolutely nothing we are doing, right now, has changed or will change that.
False
You sound gleeful about the idea of nuclear proliferation. It's unfortunate that so many have stopped caring about the institutions and liberal world order we created. Oh well.
If/once Iran gets one we'll give one to Saudi Arabia at least and make sure Israel's program is well supported. Then we can make sure Germany has them and Poland too if they want them. Korea and Japan will also get the green light. Anyone who opposes China/Russia will can get access to then and we can add a dozen or so countries to the nuclear armed states list. Why not?
Re: nuclear weapons. If the US gives up the role of protecting other friendly nations and NATO isn't viewed as reliable anymore, it makes sense to develop nuclear weapons. As a German I am starting to wonder if we should develop our own just in case Putin gets some ideas. And I am sure Japan and South Korea are having similar thoughts.
Part of that preservation means a safe and stable Middle East and more countries not acquiring nuclear weapons.
You simply cannot “negotiate” with Iran here. It’s no different than when Europeans (rightfully in my view) say there’s no negotiating with Putin and then go and complain about the US sending delegates to Russia trying to figure something out no matter how half-brained the Trump administration might be.
Likely not any more, not since Trump tore up US participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
One bad faith act destroyed concerted effort by multiple countries that would have seen greater Iranian integration into the world and the falling off of internal extreme influence.
Negotiation demonstrably worked, in the past, trust was destroyed .. who did that?
Are those the actions of a country that is really following the JCPOA? This is what a "negotiation" got us. The fact that Trump tore up the JCPOA isn't relevant because they shouldn't need to have an agreement to not build nuclear weapons in the first place! Is Vietnam or Brazil funding militias and loading up on military hardware and threatening to build a nuclear weapon unless they get some sort of special agreement to not do it?
It wasn't "one bad faith act" there never needed to be an act in the first place and you're ignoring all of Iran's actions that themselves were bad faith!
doing things that weren't covered by the JCPOA.
So, this doesn't negate the demonstrable point that negotiation with Iran actually works .. at least until one party breaks the agreement.
> Are those the actions of a country that is really following the JCPOA?
How many parties to JCPOA were also manufacturing and supplying arms? Certainly China, Russia, the U.K., and the U.S were.
Were Germany and France also doing the same?
> all of Iran's actions that themselves were bad faith!
Yeah .. nah. (See above).
Source?
You mentioned military sites... I wondered if the IAEA ever requested access to military sites? They were entitled to do so, under the JCPOA. I couldn't find anything in a quick search I just did.
In your response above, you seem to imply that the Iranians may have already sneaked nuclear matarial to military sites. But the The IAEA found no evidence of that, at least as of 2025, well after the treaty, as per this summary report:
> Iran held enriched uranium at all three main nuclear sites: Natanz, Fordow, and Esfahan. There are no indications that Iran moved stocks outside of these three sites [2]
Once again, do you have sources for what you are saying, that the Iranians weren't following the treaty while it was in effect, or that there were military sites where they were hiding nuclear research? I'm not finding any.
Or is this just an opinion, or a guess? I would say that one must be careful, those who profit in some way from war always exaggerate the enemy.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/19/iran-nuclear-d...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/us/politics/trump-iran-nu...
[2] https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/analysis-of-iaea-iran-v...
The other problem of course if the fundamental "need" to have a JCPOA in the first place. Iran can just stop trying to build nuclear weapons and then we don't need these kinds of agreements.
They also enriched uranium: "Iran has 440.9 kilograms (972 pounds) of uranium that is enriched up to 60% purity, a short, technical step from weapons-grade levels of 90%, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency." [1]
why were they even doing that? When I read things like that it's like who even cares if they were supposedly following the JCPOA? I'm not trying to change the subject or move the goalposts, but just pointing out how it's interesting that they have all this enriched material. Why do they even have it? Someone said they were following the agreement, why do they need to have this agreement to not enrich uranium? Just don't do it?
[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/securing-irans-enriched-u...
Apparently the Iranians started enriching to that 60% level, and self reporting, in 2021, as leverage in the unsuccessful negotions to bring the JCPOA back into effect to get sanctions dropped.
International politics is what it is - power and self interest. There are those who don't want Iran to have a nuke. Iran has its reasons for wanting that capability. Throw in the crusades and ongoing holy wars, colonialism, oil, authoritarian regimes, propaganda, alliances, greed, etc - it's no wonder this is still a problem. One of many problems in that part of the world.
Ironic that the U.S. got the iranian nucear program started, eh? [1]
[0] https://nuclearwatch.net/2025-09-11/enrichment-under-the-npt...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Origin...
Are you serious lol. Ok let’s go back to the Persians invading the Greeks!
You don't think religion still motivates people? There have been Sunni vs Shia and Christian vs Muslim conflicts for about a thousand years, more on than off. Israel vs Palestine more recently, fighting over ancient holy sites. So much back and forth - the Muslim conquest, the crusades, the Ottomans, Napolean, the Shah of Iran, 9/11, etc.
Are you saying that those in the Middle East don't know the history of all that, or don't notice that they have been imposed upon lately by foreign powers?
Are you saying that there's not a large loud group of people in the U.S. who have been saying that Islam is evil? They aren't like us. They want to kill us all. They'll never stop. Etc. They're going to nuke Boston if we don't attack. I know a lot of religious people looking at current events as end-of-times bliblical - New Jerusalem, second coming, etc. These people have been very politically influental. Even now Vance is very publically calling a muslim senate candidate evil.
Those in power use religion to radicalize people. Are you saying this isn't happening and hasn't been happening for hundreds of years?
I'm into history, so maybe I'm coming from a different angle.
You've posted quite a bit in this thread and repeated a number of things that appear to be factually incorrect. Are you sure that you are well informed and not making biased assumptions?
Please cite these things that are factually incorrect.
> Israel vs Palestine more recently, fighting over ancient holy sites.
That's not recent. Don't you know your history?
> Yes, I'm serious. The Persians are a proud culture and know their history. Just like a lot of other people.
> So much back and forth - the Muslim conquest, the crusades, the Ottomans, Napolean, the Shah of Iran, 9/11, etc.
Persian != Muslim - don't you know your history?
Iran wasn't responsible for 9/11.
You're lumping in a lot of distinct cultures and civilizations over thousands of years to make a point that just does not make sense.
Speaking of, yea you remember the Crusades, why do you seem to forget the Mongolians who did far worse to Islamic civilization than anyone else in history? Why doesn't anyone seem to remember that and use that as justification to invade China or Mongolia or something?
It's because this notion of some long historical memory is bullshit. The Persians, the Iranians, they forget about this stuff just like every other country. Nobody has a "long memory", and if Iran is holding on to some 2,000 year old grudge and they're just going to keep screwing with stuff while the rest of us are trying to get on with our lives, maybe Trump was right to suggest annihilating that civilization. What other option do we have?
> Are you saying that there's not a large loud group of people in the U.S. who have been saying that Islam is evil?
Yea that's generally true. Most people don't care about Islam or Muslims. This is unlike Islamic countries who care very much if you aren't Islamic. Maybe Islamic countries should grow up and get with the times?
> Even now Vance is very publically calling a muslim senate candidate evil.
As an aside I detest JD Vance but he's calling this guy evil primarily because he's a communist, not a Muslim.
At the top of our thread, where you said Iran did not follow the JCPOA [0] and that they were denying access to military sites [1] where they were doing nuclear research. Repeated in another thread [2] under this topic. I presented sources indicated your statments were not accurate [3]. You said that you didn't have sources at the moment and might need to conceded that point [4].
>> Israel vs Palestine more recently, fighting over ancient holy sites.
> That's not recent. Don't you know your history?
They have been fighting recently, and still are. Maybe we are misunderstanding each other on this one.
> Persian != Muslim - don't you know your history?
I didn't say they were. I said that they are a proud people. And not happy to be imposed upon.
> The Persians, the Iranians, they forget about this stuff just like every other country. Nobody has a "long memory", and if Iran is holding on to some 2,000 year old grudge
The CIA admitted to overthrowing their democratically elected government in the 1950s [5], putting the Shah back in power, who went on to abuse the people of that country. That's not 2000 years ago. They got out from under that in 1979. And that wasn't a good thing for the people there, either.
> Most people don't care about Islam or Muslims. This is unlike Islamic countries who care very much if you aren't Islamic. Maybe Islamic countries should grow up and get with the times?
I saw more anti-mulsim sentiment in the U.S. during the war against Iraq. Shockingly unexpected sometimes, like random enounters with a Walmart manager making small talk. I still see anti-muslim sentiment now in relation to refugees who look different. Group think, fanned by meme's on facebook.
I assume the same happens in Muslim countries. It's pretty easy to whip up public sentiment against colonial masters. And it's pretty easy to show "Death to America!" videos to Americans and get them all hopped up, too. It's how they maniuplate us. They don't tell prople that Iranians also say "Death to traffic!" [6] like Americans say "Fuck traffic!"
> As an aside I detest JD Vance but he's calling this guy evil primarily because he's a communist, not a Muslim.
I agree with your sentiment on JD Vance in general, but he mentioned religion is his Michigan speech about Abdul el Sayed, I didn't see any mention of communism: “What I see is a man who has sympathy and compassion for people who share his religion, but have nothing for people who don’t. A person who will apologize for a murderer so long as he looks the right way, but will not understand the plight of an innocent child if that person has the wrong faith” [7]
Question: Do you have a different source on what JD Vance said? Why do you think he meant communism?
There's things that need to be talked about in reference to the relationship with Iran. I think we should talk about what is true, and not be misled by propaganda.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49660178
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49661916#49663356
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49658299#49661062
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49661916#49665530
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49661916#49665633
[5] https://apnews.com/article/iran-1953-coup-cia-218323db3cc1ac...
[6] https://www.ricksteves.com/watch-read-listen/video/tv-show/t...
[7] https://edition.cnn.com/2026/08/31/politics/jd-vance-abdul-e...