[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...

[legitster]

If it's purely about non-proliferation then partnering with Israel on this is extremely hypocritical.

> 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.

Says who? I don't think anyone outside of a small group of hyper-Imperialists actually believe this.

Even if I bought the premise that a war is preferable to the JCPOA, what's the actual end goal? Bombing Iran into submission was always a delusionary idea. Taking and occupying the country is the only realistic, long-term path if we want to go down this hardline path.

[ericmay]

> If it's purely about non-proliferation then partnering with Israel on this is extremely hypocritical.

I didn't suggest it was purely non-proliferation (I'm assuming you are talking about the war itself) - I was just responding to the JCPOA aspect.. We partner with nuclear states all the time, such as the United Kingdom and France. We're even partnering with Pakistan now to help facilitate negotiations with Iran.

> Even if I bought the premise that a war is preferable to the JCPOA, what's the actual end goal? Bombing Iran into submission was always a delusionary idea. Taking and occupying the country is the only realistic, long-term path if we want to go down this hardline path.

Now we're talking. I really am not totally sure about what the best response here was. But I'm also very much of the opinion that this has been war-gamed to death by the Pentagon. Perhaps we had some faulty assumptions. Perhaps it's still too early. Even today I was reading that there was a leaked internal communication where the Iranian ruling regime is becoming increasingly concerned about the economy due to the blockade. There's a lot to discuss here in general.

[JojoFatsani]

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