[mjburgess]

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac... > https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/10/iran-saudi-ara...

What the US was doing before Israel blew up its efforts.

The idea that iran has any interest in using nuclear weapons is so absurd that it's incredible any one could take this propaganda seriously. Every relevant country has at least second strike capabilities against Iran, so it would be suicidal in the extreme -- it's also highly likely that the handful of nukes they'd have would be mostly intercepted. They haven't even developed second strike themselves, so they'd almost certainly lose any nuclear capacity on first attempted use. Iran's capacity for nuclear agression with nukes, is tiny.

Iran having a nuclear weapon would be one of the most stabilising outcomes in the middle east, as it would prevent israel (which is the most violent, destablising state in the region) from acting with impunity. This is why israel has, for 30 years, been complaining that iran is "months away" from a bomb, and why for 20 years its being trying to precipitate a war to drag the US into.

Iran having a nuclear weapon is the best possible outcome for global security, precisely because its the only configuration of events which prevents israel from waging wars of aggression on its neighbors (syria, iran, et al.).

[Gareth321]

> What the US was doing before Israel blew up its efforts.

So... nothing?

> The idea that iran has any interest in using nuclear weapons is so absurd that it's incredible any one could take this propaganda seriously.

When a country repeatedly calls for the genocide of nations and peoples, over decades and various leaders, and funds dozens of terrorist groups which carry out unspeakable acts of depravity and violence against said peoples, why on Earth would you think they don't mean it? Why would having more destructive power suddenly make them less violent? Your logic doesn't follow at all. It's clear you have little understanding of the various ways in which Iran has waged war on its neighbours over decades. Them having a nuke would merely enable them to become far more bold in their covert and overt attempts to cleans the world of their enemies.

[mjburgess]

> nothing

So signing treaties, negotiating, having mass inspections, economic cooperation -- this is nothing? As of 2015 the official policy of the US was reintegration of iran into the economic system; trump undid that briefly, but then adopted exactly the same policy until a month ago.

> why on Earth would you think they don't mean it?

It's disappoing how effectively people are propagandised into offensive action based on the words of foreign nations.

Look at what Regan said about the USSR and vice versa, rhetoric much more extreme. At the time people couldnt understand the incomprehensibly insane world-ending rhetoric. Now we have a coherent theory of why leaders do this -- which is that you want your enemies to believe you will engage in suicidal behaviour or your deterrence isnt effective.

Here iran has enough missiles to detroy israel, but if it uses enough of them, its quite likely israel would nuke iran. Israel is the roge state in the region who goes around trying to topple regeims, bomb embassies, etc. They are the nation everyone is trying to contain.

Iran's rhetroic, and it's amassing of arms is a containment strategy for israel. Israel needs to find it semi-plausible iran will attack, or else Iran is screwed -- because israel will attack.

Welome to the world of geopolitics, where defensive behaviour by other countries looks like offensive behaviour if you're poorly informed about the situation. It makes waging wars of aggression, like this one, trivially easy to engineer consent for. Oh well, its the US's own blood and treasure, go spend it if you wish.

[Gareth321]

> So signing treaties, negotiating, having mass inspections, economic cooperation -- this is nothing? As of 2015 the official policy of the US was reintegration of iran into the economic system; trump undid that briefly, but then adopted exactly the same policy until a month ago.

I was referring to this current round of sabre rattling, but if you're referring to the JCPOA, I should inform you that Iran agreed to monitoring and verification, not only under strictly restricted grounds. The deal did not give inspectors the right to freely roam. Access to military sites remained contentious and largely off limits. Iran never gave access to Parchin, for example. This meant Iran was free to continue their nuclear weapons development program - though of course in secret.

Further, the JCPOA unlocked $100B in frozen assets which the brutal dictator Ayatollah Khamenei immediately stole and used to cement his position of power. The JCPOA also lifted oil sanctions which further enriched Khamenei to the tune of $10-30B per year.

The JCPOA was commonly regarded as impotent and symbolic at best, and quite harmful at worst.

> Look at what Regan said about the USSR and vice versa, rhetoric much more extreme.

They both meant it. This is a crucial fact from the cold war. The world really was minutes away from nuclear war. I highly recommend reading the account of Stanislav Petrov [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov], a Russian lieutenant colonel, who in 1983 narrowly avoided nuclear war by heroically refusing to report an apparent missile launch by the U.S. During this period the U.S. formally developed the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine which automated nuclear launches in the event that no one was left alive to retaliate.

You use an example of two deadly serious adversaries willing to destroy the world as an example of something we should not fear?

[mjburgess]

They weren't willing to destroy the world. You do observe that sometimes one's own propaganda can backfire, esp. if its runs over years, and create a "middle management" layer of zaelots who arent aware it was for show.

So one quite important feature of stabre-ratting systems is that you don't have regieme-change instability where "lower tier zealots" who have been propagandised their whole lives suddenly take power -- because they, like the public, may be unaware it was just for show.

You're just repeating decades of US propaganda to me. I know it all. This was just a TV show put on to defend the rise of two empires, the US and the USSR -- the claims about ideology, world-destruction, communism, capitalism, etc. are all propangada. The goal the entire time, of both nations, was to expand their spheres of influence to each other's borders and to contain one another.

Here, the near entirity of iran's foreign policy is -- just like that of the US, USSR (and many other nations) -- a containment strategy for an highly militarised adversary. If iran took any other approach, israel would have invaded far earlier.

[_heimdall]

It would be a terrible strategy for Israel to attempt to invade Iran, regardless of what alternative approaches could have been taken in the past.

Israel would be outnumbered, fighting on enemy soil, and the logistics and supply chain would be insanely difficult to put in place and protect.

[mjburgess]

You cannot obtain regime change, nor end iran's nuclear capacity, without a ground invasion. Everyone involved knows this.

So either their state goals are lies, or their strategy is a losing one, or they anticipate a ground invasion.

Either way, the choice before israel/us is lose-lose.

But of course, it's imperative we take death threats very seriously, so just you know, err.. we.. err.. dont have to... err. dunno.

Of course that sentence should be, "it's imperative we pretend to take death threats seriously so that israel's ability to dominate the middle east through wars of aggression is maintained, even if that comes at the cost of the blood and treasure of the US"

[_heimdall]

Unless I wildly misunderstand the meaning behind the "death to ___" phrase often used by Iranians, it is meant as a call against the foreign government not the people.

The Iraniansiranians, or at least the Iranian government, absolutely want the US and Israeli governments to fall, but when have they called for genocide?

[mjburgess]

I wouldn't try to analyse any sabre-ratting rhetoric by foreign leaders either way. But if you really want to: start with your own.

Google all the times the US leaders have threatened annihilation against foreign nations, threats vastly more credible as a global superpower.

One should never take words very seriously in geopolitics. They are 2/3rds designed for domestic populations, to propagandize them (esp. in democracies, which must lie to their publics), and 1/3rds lies for the other side.

Serious analysers of geopoltical strategy are only concerned with actions, capabilities and growing capabilities. And they are esp. uninterested in domestic propaganda.

Everyone in the US elite is extremely well-aware of this; by pointing to iranian rhetoric now they are just propagandizing american audiences to support a war of aggression which is, largely, against the interests of the US population.

[Gareth321]

* "Israel must be wiped off the map." -Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

* "Israel must be wiped off the map." -President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

* "The Zionist regime will perish in the not-so-far future." -Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

* "Our strategy is to erase Israel from the global political map." -General Hossein Salami

They have been clear and consistent in their intent. Whether it be rhetoric or their continued funding and training of various terrorist groups in the region and globally.

Lastly, I find the argument derisive and infantilising that they don't really mean "death" when they say "death to America/Israel/the West". We all understand what the word "death" means.

[mjburgess]

Perhaps when you're done with iran then, you can move on to all other nations whose leaders have wished destruction on their neighbours. You'll find that's approximately all nations to have ever existed. Preferably, you might start with your own.

[Gareth321]

I'm sure that would happen if those countries enrich uranium to 60%.