[watwut]

There was a deal, Trump cancelled. There were negotiations where the Iranian regime actually made big concessions. But, Trump administration was not interested in concessions and started a war with no real reason.

> At what point does it turn from a "disagreement" to a credible existential threat that an adversary cannot ignore?

It was not nearly this point. This was a point where USA, Israel and Saudi perceived Iran as weak and easier target. That is why the war started.

[lwansbrough]

Iran has zero leverage. Any leverage given is an olive branch. Obama era diplomacy was the right path, Trump is a moron. But the bigger issue here is Iran's free-will pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is a choice they're making. They choose to pursue nuclear weapons, forcing the US to either take a diplomatic path to stop them, or intervene.

They don't have to build nuclear weapons! They're just doing that shit.

[kakacik]

Well now they have to, given that a single nuke ownership (and its never a single one, is it) would prevent any such actions. I don't think anybody sane at this point thinks any sort of regime change is going to happen in this century.

The bigger problem is - current war won't prevent them from obtaining it. It may delay the date, but also will make them work smarter, hide things better and give them much more resolve. I can see ie putin helping them get through some technological or material hurdles, that would help him greatly in their war in ukraine.

[lwansbrough]

We can agree that starting a war with Iran is sort of the magnum opus of the worst administration in American history.

But I do feel obligated to interrogate the idea that the US is responsible for this escalation. Iran is seeking to expand its power and influence in the region, and employs violent means upon people - even its own people - to achieve these goals. The regime is, fundamentally, amoral.

The US gets to decide if it wants to put a stop to that. But left alone, the world gets more dangerous the stronger the Iranian regime becomes. The same cannot be said about the United States. The period of history belonging to the unipolar US liberal order was probably the most prosperous and peaceful time in history.

[kelipso]

Unipolar being the key here. The world will get more dangerous with a stronger US in the current multipolar world.

[kakacik]

That depends who you ask - Vietnamese, Iraqi, Afghani, heck whole middle east, almost whole north Africa? Chile? Nicaragua? Cuba? Russia? China? And so on? Not so much.

Generally US tries to represent freedom and democracy and be the force of good, but they often ending up representing it in pretty horrible and messed up ways which end very far from these ideals. Road to hell is often paved with good intentions, isn't it. So no, too strong US ain't very good for rest of the world, quadruple that with current leadership. I am not saying China or russia are better, or even equal, far from it, its rather loss in each direction.

Iran is a bit special in its absolute hate for Israel and a bit whole west, but thats purely wet dream of ayatollahs that came to power after 1978, till then they were regional friends and one of best western partners. That revolution weas triggered purely by utter incompetence of CIA and british MI6, so thanx guys for fucking up entire region for everybody.

I don't think there is a single country in this world who would welcome them becoming nuclear power - not russians, not chinese, and definitely nobody around them. But maybe its too much to expect from reality - it would require such a massive ground invasion that US is not willing to wage (and pay for) and it would take a nuke to NY or similar level to trigger it.