[kumarvvr]

If Iran has nukes, then a nuke race will start in the middle East, especially with Saudis, who will want their own nukes.

Iran getting nukes is the spark that will start a lot of chain reactions.

And islamic populations are radicalized enough that the possibility of a nuke on Israel increases dramatically.

[selcuka]

> If Iran has nukes, then a nuke race will start in the middle East

A fair concern, but it is interesting that although "estimates of Israel's stockpile range between 90 and 400 nuclear warheads" [1], we are not concerned about those warheads as much as we do about the ones Iran might have. Should US bomb Israeli nuclear plants? No. Should they have bombed the Iranian ones? Why?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

[partiallypro]

We didn't want Israel to have nukes either, we tried to stop them and failed. We wouldn't bomb Israel's nukes because they -already- have them, and they have grown in a semi-reliable regional ally since then. We are trying to stop Iran from having them at all to prevent them from being essentially off-limits to retaliation (note Iran is the #1 state sponsor of terrorism / people's fears of supporting Ukraine given Russia keeps threatening nuclear action) and kicking off a regional nuclear arms race.

[buzzerbetrayed]

Maybe it has something to do with Israel being an ally and Iran sponsoring terrorism all over the region

[selcuka]

> it has something to do with Israel being an ally

There are many allies of the US, still they are not exempt from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). I'm not sure if it's a sane strategy to permit a single ally who has never signed the NPT [1] to build nuclear weapons, unlike your many other allies or non-allies:

> The roots of this preferential treatment go back to a secret 1969 understanding between U.S. President Richard Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. The agreement essentially allowed Israel to keep its nuclear weapons as long as it remained silent about them and avoided nuclear tests. That bargain has held ever since, with successive U.S. administrations turning a blind eye to what would be a clear violation of international norms if committed by any other state.

Causing a power imbalance in the region doesn't seem the right way to keep peace.

[1] https://www.eurasiareview.com/23062025-israels-nuclear-ambig...

[guelo]

"terrorism" is just war fighting that we don't like. Israel is by far the biggest aggressor in the middle east having bombed half a dozen countries in the last year.

[DangitBobby]

More and more I find our alliance with Israel in need of justification.

[danenania]

I think this attack makes it more likely they’ll get nukes, not less. They moved all their enriched uranium already, and now they know that there’s no longer any point in diplomacy.

The next facilities they build will be a few times deeper, and I have no doubt we’ll soon be hearing that ground troops are the only way to stop them.

[dlubarov]

They had already crossed the line into nuclear tech that's specifically for weapons, i.e. with a 400kg stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%. Unless we accept explanations like "scientific curiosity", they were already somewhere in the process of building nuclear weapons, even if success wasn't immanent.

I don't know how long these operations will set them back, but if the Iranian regime won't willingly refrain from nuclear weapons work, isn't a delay better than nothing?

[danenania]

They “could have” had nuclear weapons for a long time if they’d wanted to, yes, but they didn’t get them. They signed the NPT, allowed inspections, and their ruler issued a fatwa against developing nuclear weapons. Why’d they do all that if their goal all along was to get a nuclear weapon? They could have just done it.

These attacks make it clear that they would have been better off if they had gotten them, so it seems reasonable to assume this will be their new policy. What other strategic choice have they been left with?

[dlubarov]

Just to clarify, is your position that Iran was never working toward nuclear weapons, or just not until recently? I think enriching uranium to 60% is pretty clear evidence of their intent, even though it's just one component of an eventual weapon.

Being an NPT signatory could be evidence of Iran not working toward nuclear weapons, if they were compliant. But they have violated their NPT obligations on some occasions, with major violations recently.

[danenania]

I think they wanted to be seen as credibly close as a deterrent and bargaining chip in negotiations, but they had no intention of going all the way unless attacked.

Now they likely do intend to get them asap if they’re able to.

[guelo]

Why would it be up to a rogue non-NPT country, Israel, to enforce the NPT?

[dlubarov]

There isn't really such a thing as (forcefully) enforcing the NPT. Israel's casus belli (if we consider this a new war and not a continuation of one) would be based on self-defense.

[jjk166]

60% enrichment is not weapons grade. Weapons grade is 80%. High enrichment is used in certain reactor designs, such as naval reactors.

There are a lot of reasons to be enriching uranium besides building nuclear weapons. Considering the US reneged on its deal to drop sanctions in exchange for Iran to not enrich uranium, it is pretty obviously useful as a bargaining chip, in the negotiations.

The US intelligence community assessed that Iran has not been working on a bomb since the program was shut down in 2003. They didn't want a nuke, they wanted an end to sanctions. They further wanted to avoid provoking exactly this sort of conflict. This did not delay them getting nuclear weapons, it will make them get nuclear weapons.

[dlubarov]

To quote an ISIS report, "Iran has no civilian use or justification for its production of 60 percent enriched uranium, particularly at the level of hundreds of kilograms". In theory it could be for naval propulsion, but experts (including IAEA inspectors) seem unconvinced.

[jjk166]

They had a very obvious use for it: trade it to the US in exchange for sanctions relief.

[mupuff1234]

Those can be bombed right at the beginning. Israel will probably try to establish a similar status que as in Lebanon right now - "if you make a move we immediately take it out".

And the development of a nuclear sites leaves a significant intelligence trail, not sure it can be hidden.

(Of course they can always be gifted a bomb, but that's a very different story)

[danenania]

Yeah I’m sure it will be a huge success with no unforeseen consequences whatsoever. Since that’s how these things have been going over the last thirty years.

[mupuff1234]

Can't that be said about every path of action in this scenario?

[vFunct]

And that's something we will have to accept, that Islamic populations will always have nukes.

How do you plan to handle a world with Islamic populations having nukes? Because that's something you will have to plan for. You have no choice. They will not let you not let them have nukes. They will make sure they will have nukes. That's just given.

[nashashmi]

Islamic populations?

[kumarvvr]

Most of Islamic republics are fiefdoms, kingdoms and dictatorships. Most of the populations are radicalized, and have very limited freedom of speech and right to protest.

[nashashmi]

I will not seek to engage with you on this matter. You have developed a cynical and propagandistic approach to demonize and vilify. Just understand that all of your information is wrong.

[Ar-Curunir]

Have you lived in any of these Islamic countries?

[booleandilemma]

You just have to read a wikipedia article on them. No need to live there.

[kumarvvr]

Is that a pre-condition to know about countries, leaderships and general public?

I have not lived in the US, and I know a lot about the US national character.

[nashashmi]

> I have not lived in the US, and I know a lot about the US national character

That is not a good comparison. The US is well reported enough in news and media and movie to have a good awareness of the culture within. You also understand their language.

However, the Arab world is not reported well enough apart from biased sources that seek to defame and discredit them. And neither would you understand their language. So no your awareness of their culture and country and leadership is so far fallen yet you think it is sufficient that it becomes dangerous.

There is no such thing as Islamic population unless you are an Islamophobe who have sought to “other” this part of the world

[Ar-Curunir]

Yes, I would say that making sweeping statements about a populace does require actual first-hand experience with said populace.

[jenny91]

Almost a kind of domino theory, if you will?