[ericmay]

If you assume that war with China is on the horizon, it's arguable that this is a good thing for the US to see weaknesses exposed now while there is still something to do about it. Even if that war (and I hope it's not) is not on the horizon, real battlefield testing in what is becoming a new battlefield of drones and smaller missiles/weapons is necessary and highly valuable. Contrast that with, for example, China who has yet to demonstrate its combined arms ability, and its soldiers and equipment have yet to be tested in any meaningful way. There's a lot of value in battlefield experience - Ukraine itself is a great example.

Although the war in Iran is very obviously justified, I am writing here a bit more broadly about some of the trade-offs for the military. Our defense industrial base has become sophisticated, expensive, and slow because we would increasingly get sold more "advanced" weapons. That's great when you are facing an enemy like Iran without an ability to really fight back, but in a war with a peer state you need more munitions faster and cheaper. Industrial production is key, else you become quickly exhausted.

[mcphage]

> Although the war in Iran is very obviously justified,

Wait, what now?

[ericmay]

Can't have another North Korea sitting in the Middle East with control over so much oil supply. Don't want Gulf States to go and get nuclear weapons in response to Iran getting them (nuclear non-proliferation).

[Planktonne]

That's not the justification for the current war; the White House [0] claims that Iran's nuclear capabilities were 'obliterated' last year.

[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2025/06/experts-agree-ir...

[ericmay]

I'm not justifying the war on White House press releases. The additional justifications though just strengthen the need.

Separately it's a poor argument to say well Iran's nuclear capabilities were obliterated (they were certainly damaged if nothing else) therefore further attacks are unjustified when Iran could build up missile defense, missile attack, and drone capabilities and make a future incursion to stop their nuclear program impossible without extreme destruction to the Middle East and the rest of global trade.

Which, you know, was what they were actually doing. Hence the missile attacks. We just caught them before we couldn't actually do much about it without significant loss of life and equipment.

[legitster]

The JCPOA was very effective until Trump cancelled it without any consolations and upped sanctions for no reasons (Iran was cooperating!)

The progress of their enrichment program is purely a product of this administration's failed diplomacy.

Comparing Iran to North Korea is something someone with no actual understanding of Iran would do. Iran is not a hermit kingdom.

[ericmay]

> Comparing Iran to North Korea is something someone with no actual understanding of Iran would do. Iran is not a hermit kingdom.

That was your comparison, not mine. My comparison was that once they obtain a nuclear weapon, there's nothing we can do anymore. They can obtain more, and then use them as a threat to tax the Straight, further enriching their regime, &c. That's what has happened to North Korea (minus the strategic position and of course it's slightly different due to China).

The JCPOA wasn't effective for two reasons:

1. We weren't getting the cooperation we needed in the first place to examine nuclear sites.

2. We shouldn't have to pay off Iran to not get nuclear weapons. Why do they get to be treated differently than any other country?

[legitster]

Those JCPOA concerns are pure Fox New lore:

1. We had anytime/anywhere access to their nuclear facilities and 24 day access to any square inch of their country. They never violated that part of the agreement and it's also silly to think intelligence didn't already know where all the facilities were.

2. The payments were a trivial part of the deal. It's especially ironic given this administration keeps offering payments to end the current conflict.

The reality is any deal we sign today is going to be substantially worse in every way for us than the JCPOA was.

> Why do they get to be treated differently than any other country?

This is the crux of the thing though. North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, and even South Africa all had successful and clandestine nuclear programs without any military intervention. Going to war with Iran is completely arbitrary - there is no direct threat to the US, and we did it without any cooperation with any of the countries actually dependent on Gulf oil.

[ericmay]

> This is the crux of the thing though. North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, and even South Africa all had successful and clandestine nuclear programs without any military intervention. Going to war with Iran is completely arbitrary - there is no direct threat to the US, and we did it without any cooperation with any of the countries actually dependent on Gulf oil.

Or maybe we just learned our lesson. Is the world better for each of those countries having nuclear weapons? I think not. Why permit yet another one to join the club? Why does Iran get special treatment? Do we need a JCPOA with all other countries, to pay them off as well to not get nuclear weapons? If you are in favor of nuclear non-proliferation you have to become a circus star to be able to jump through all of the contradictory hoops needed to justify somehow giving Iran special treatment or suggesting it's ok for them to have a nuclear bomb.

Calling the war completely arbitrary is intellectually dishonest and pointless in a discussion.

> and we did it without any cooperation with any of the countries actually dependent on Gulf oil.

As quoted by German defense minister Boris Pistorius:

“What does … Donald Trump expect a handful or two handfuls of European frigates to do in the Strait of Hormuz that the powerful U.S. Navy cannot do?” [1]

There is no country or coalition of countries that can do anything about this. They lack any meaningful military capabilities to stop Iran. What exactly is there to cooperate on? Iran is already sanctioned by the EU [2] for example. If we think it needs to be done, we just do it. It's not up to those who have no ability to do anything about it to decide whether we get to do something or not. I don't agree with how Trump has handled that aspect of the war, but the grandstanding and pearl clutching over a non-existent and not to come into existence coalition against Iran is mostly falling on deaf ears.

[1] https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5786066-trump-allies-stra...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/too-early-talk-abo...

[JojoFatsani]

We paid them off and American citizens had cheaper gas and a better stock market than they do now

[mcphage]

Do you think this war is (a) likely to convince Iran to not pursue nuclear weapons, or (b) convince Iran that nuclear weapons are a necessity for their continued existence? I'm pretty sure it's (b), and that between Russia's attack on Ukraine, and the US's attack on Iran, all it will do is convince the rest of the world that they absolutely need nuclear weapons.

[ericmay]

Iran was already convinced that they needed to pursue nuclear weapons. They were still doing so under the JCPOA and even in cases where countries offered free, unlimited material for civilian nuclear reactors Iran refused. Why refuse? It's obvious.

They shouldn't have needed a JCPOA anyway - why was Iran pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place? The US didn't attack Iran in the early or mid-2000s, for example. Do we have a JCPOA style agreement with Brazil, or Thailand, or Italy? No. They just, as good faith partners in nuclear non-proliferation simply don't pursue nuclear weapons. Why is Iran different? Why does the rest of the world have to pay them to not pursue nuclear weapons?

[mcphage]

> They shouldn't have needed a JCPOA anyway - why was Iran pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place?

This current war is why.

[ericmay]

We wouldn't have a war if Iran wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons. It's post-hoc justification.

The JCPOA excuse can quietly and safely be discarded. It's a bad argument.

[atmavatar]

Keep in mind that there's only a risk of Iran gaining nuclear weapons in the first place because Trump in his first term reneged on the deal where we had inspectors in Iran to ensure they weren't making them.

Random, unprovoked attacks by other countries only underscores Iran's need to build nuclear weapons. Mission accomplished.

[_DeadFred_]

Iran and a large part of the top religious leaders in Shia Islam (who also run Iran a strict Islamic state) have called for the death and destruction of me and my country for my entire life. Iran has spent billions working towards that end and funded multiples of the suffering that occurred in Gaza (such as the war in Yemen. Heck Iran provided the funding that enabled Oct 7th ultimately resulting in Israel taking action in Gaza making Iran in part responsible for Gaza's horrific suffering as well).

In my lived experience, Iran and by extension Shia Islam (as it is very senior Shia Islam leaders making religious proclamations/justifications declaring it) has been at war with my country my entire life and sponsored random attacks against Americans and also non-Americans out of the hopes of weakening the US to promote their 45+ year vocally stated goal of the death/destruction of my country. They have ordered hits around the world on people that wrong speak about Islam such as Rushdie. And they kidnap/rape/murder little girls in their nation if they don't wear the proper hats. These are Islamist religious fanatics intent on reshaping the world to match Shia Islams world view. Their 'moderates' ordered 30,000 of their own people gunned down in the streets, then went to hospitals and murdered nurses and doctors that treated injured civilians. That is the 'moderate' position in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

[ericmay]

This is false because Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon before Trump ever came into office. the JCPOA was signed under Obama. It wouldn't have existed had Iran not already been pursuing nuclear weapons.

Iran can obviously hide nuclear weapons and uranium enrichment activities from the inspectors. Unless of course you believe the US intelligence agency and inspection agencies are capable of perfect intelligence. :)

> Random, unprovoked attacks by other countries only underscores Iran's need to build nuclear weapons. Mission accomplished.

Doesn't make sense. You're ignoring Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and other geostrategic concerns. Even if Iran wasn't trying to build a nuclear weapon they were stockpiling missiles such that they could seize control over the Straight of Hormuz and ensure tolls were paid to their autocratic regime. It's beyond bizarre to me that someone can, presumably in an honest way, think that this war just randomly started and was unprovoked. Incompatible world views.

[tzs]

Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. Many countries put sanctions on them to get them to stop. They made a deal, JCPOA, with the US, China, France, Russia, the UK, Germany, and the EU to stop in exchange for reducing sanctions.

It worked. Even the first Trump administration certified that Iran was upholding their end of the deal.

Then Trump unilaterally cancelled it over the objection of all the other parties and put back the sanctions. Iran resumed pursuing nuclear weapons.

This clearly shows that war is not necessary to get Iran to stop. They were even offering significant concessions in the negotiations just before this war according to a UK advisor who was in attendance, but the US was not actually interested in a diplomatic solution and was just using the negotiations to make Iran think the attack was not imminent.

[cholantesh]

More like you are ignoring the US' prodigious client in the region running amok.

[ericmay]

No I'm not ignoring Israel, I'm just evaluating Israel in context. Have they done shitty things? FOR SURE. Does that excuse Iran and Hamas with respect to the October massacre? No absolutely not. But play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

On the other hand, the US just forced Israel to the negotiating table with Lebanon with a single tweet. Hopefully Israel and Lebanon can work together to rid themselves of Hezbollah and restore peace. We know the UN peacekeepers certainly couldn't help here.