[mrtksn]

Yeah, that's not very honest position. You have to decide if you want to squeeze them out or make things right.

If they hid things and the agreement wasn't just trashed, that could have been a scandal that gets resolved on the path to peace. It could happen for many reasons, maybe they don't trust the West to uphold their part and wanted an insurance policy, maybe it was division within. It doesn't matter that much, it's not like they made the bomb already and were about to hit once everyone lowers their guard.

Later what we had was Iran that was on the table, trying to play nice and that was destroyed probably because of the ego of a guy who couldn't handle to stick with the agreement signed by someone he hates.

[dilyevsky]

Interesting way to play nice by having dozens of secret sites that nobody knew about (nuclear archive) and recently taking enrichment to 60% (they've been caught with over 80%) and dabbling in metallization which have only military applications.

[mrtksn]

Well, whoever did that was proven right(from their standing point + Ukraine). Apparently you can't trust USA and give up your nukes. If you don't have nukes they don't honor the agreements and guarantees and even bomb you.

Unfortunately the American attitudes will result in proliferation. Not the Iranian ones.

[dilyevsky]

Giving up nukes was never the intention. They would've slow-boiled the frog and we would one day wake up with a nuclear iran (with icmbs! - not banned under jpoa) if they were smart about it like dprk. Unfortunately for mullahs they weren't and got cocky and overextended. Then 10/7 happened and the rest is like they say history

[mrtksn]

Maybe or maybe not, we will never know that. Who knows how things play out when a country is integrated back in the international system and have something to lose when if get caught on checks. Maybe there would have been a book about how Iran continued its clandestine nuke program but eventually dismantled it as its society and economy normalized and having that had no benefits.

Now we know the timeline where agreements are not honored by the US.

[dilyevsky]

OK but we actually kinda do know that because there were sunsets in that deal which meant we would've gotten here just a few years late.

> Who knows how things play out when a country is integrated back in the international system and have something to lose when if get caught on checks

Ah that's the Merkel's school of international relations =) We also know that with a russia example which you mentioned. Didn't work too well, did it?

Btw, DPRK were also given many concessions and reintegration opportunities (Kaesong) yet that was not the path they chose.

[mrtksn]

Look, I don't know why you believe so much in the imaginary timeline but maybe Iran would have been like Israel: having the bomb and not talking about it.

Who knows, it's all speculation at this point. The current reality is that if you don't have a nuke you get invaded. Everyone will have nuke soon. Those who fail will be destroyed because agreements, international laws etc doesn't mean anything anymore.

[Whoppertime]

Well we know what happened with the nuclear ambitions of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Their regimes lied about their nuclear capabilities and our regimes also lied about their nuclear capabilities

[florbnit]

Why are you suddenly arguing against Israel? I mean he’s we know they have hidden nuclear weapons and will not enter into any deals or allow inspection. But they are on our side so we don’t care about that.

[dilyevsky]

silly argument. iran is not a tiny country surrounded by much larger countries that want to run them into the sea. they should have invested that 500B into conventional forces instead - be a lot safer for that as a country (except that would threaten the regime).