[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.

[mcphage]

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

And you feel this war is going to get them to stop?

[cholantesh]

Nowhere near as bad as the question-begging premise your comment leads with.