[js8]

> o you agree that in the case where the international community finds Iran has an active program to build nuclear weapons, most Iranians would believe them?

I think it's a moot point. If Iranian government agrees to the inspections (which is a big question why it should), then there is no purpose for them to hide the program from their own public.

There is a distinction between sanctions and diplomacy. Sanctions are not diplomacy. Diplomacy is making an agreement (on the level of national leadership, sidestepping the question of its legitimacy), which might be easier to get without threats or undermining the economy of the nation.

It's my opinion that nuclear disarmament can only happen if we treat everyone the same. So the countries which have significant nuclear stockpiles cannot go around and tell other countries to suck it up.

> But I don't expect (or ask) the Iranian people to rise up

Why do you defend sanctions as a tool, then?

[yyyk]

"If Iranian government agrees to the inspections (which is a big question why it should), then there is no purpose for them to hide the program from their own public."

Sure there is. It's to make them appear to be defending themselves from a nefarious foreign plot. 'We cheated because we can' is not a good PR point even in those regimes.

"If Iranian government agrees to the inspections (which is a big question why it should)"

The truth of the matter is that the world doesn't want a nuclear arms race in the ME, nor do we want crazies which threatened to destroy another state to have nukes. That is treating Iran uniquely, but it's a unique regime with unique behaviour.

"So the countries which have significant nuclear stockpiles cannot go around and tell other countries to suck it up."

In our reality they can. That may not be ideal, but it is stable and prevents new world wars.

"Why do you defend sanctions as a tool, then?"

To get an inspection deal without sunsetting clauses and other loopholes, to pressure the regime to stop its malign foreign behaviour. I'd have also liked a change in the human rights situation, but that's apparently not a goal of this US administration.

[js8]

> It's to make them appear to be defending themselves from a nefarious foreign plot.

That doesn't make any sense, once Iran has agreed to cooperate with the inspectors.

> The truth of the matter is that the world doesn't want a nuclear arms race in the ME

If you truly don't want that, support denuclearization of Israel.

> That may not be ideal, but it is stable and prevents new world wars.

No, it doesn't prevent new wars. How do you prove that, anyway?

> to pressure the regime to stop its malign foreign behaviour

This is pretty rich coming from the U.S., which has literally no business on the other side of the planet.

> I'd have also liked a change in the human rights situation, but that's apparently not a goal of this US administration.

If this was their concern, they would stop supporting Saudis.

[yyyk]

"That doesn't make any sense, once Iran has agreed to cooperate with the inspectors."

In the scenario we're talking about, Iran is cheating. Of course they'd want to hide it and claim to the populace they're just being persecuted.

"If you truly don't want that, support denuclearization of Israel."

Well, Israel has had it since the 1960s, without an arms race. Apparently neighbours are not so concerned, but with Iran involved, Saudi has already taken steps to build a reactor. Also, Iranian development can hardly be considered defensive when they are the ones threatening Israel and not the other way around.

"This is pretty rich coming from the U.S., which has literally no business on the other side of the planet."

The same argument could (and has) been used to ask US to let Europe go, first to the Germans, and then to the Commies. It's a bit rich hearing it from a continent which has profited so much from US involvement.