[dmix]

It's a pressure campaign to get a nuclear deal. NYT reported Iran already offered to open the strait, end hostilities, and negotiate a nuclear deal later, but the US rejected that offer as they want to pressure them into giving up their uranium.

Now Iran is demanding money in exchange for the uranium which is the primary roadblock.

[antman]

Nobody credible said or believed Iran was making nuclear weapons. Iran had made it a fatwa against the Islamic law to develop such weapons and Obama had referenced that. They also dont believe bolivian fishermen could reach the US with stocks of drugs, they dont believe venezuela’s president was a hidden drug kingpin, and they also dont believe that Cuba is a credible threat that needs to be blockaded to the stone age.

These are power plays to signal that world dominance is not decaying but in case of Iran it has backfired and pushes China’s narrative as a pillar of stability.

[alsetmusic]

The strongest case for developing nuclear weapons is our lack of invasions of nuclear powers.

It's funny how he tore up a nuclear arms embargo / agreement and then acted as though they (Iran) were a threat that couldn't be tolerated.

Common saying: "They sell us the sickness and then sell us the cure."

[expedition32]

Nuclear weapons have been a strictly self defense capability since 1945 I don't know why the White House is crying about Iran getting them.

[jameshilliard]

> I don't know why the White House is crying about Iran getting them.

How does one not see a problem with terrorists(i.e. the Islamic regime in Iran) getting nuclear weapons?

[cnd78A]

For many people "terrorists" are the one bombing and invading, which means that Iran is currently victim of terrorism.

[handfuloflight]

After you say why you don't have a problem with the Israeli terrorists having them already.

[jameshilliard]

> After you say why you don't have a problem with the Israeli terrorists having them already.

There are no "Israeli terrorists" in control of Israel's nuclear weapons, the government of Israel is certainly not controlled by terrorists like the Iranian government is.

Israel also does not have a policy of destroying Iran, while Iran does have a clear policy of destroying Israel[0].

There's a clear difference in their ideologies as well, the Islamic government of Iran clearly believes in dangerous ideologies like Martyrdom and Jihad(holy war), organizations with these sort of ideological beliefs should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons because typical deterrence strategies like mutually assured destruction are unlikely to be effective.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Irani...

[solumunus]

Because Iran is an extremist theocracy who literally regards USA as Satan and openly calls for its destruction. Pretty obvious.

[pelorat]

"Satan" as in the original meaning of the word "adversary of god". They are not calling you Satan as a way to say evil, but as a way to say "adversary of our faith".

[jameshilliard]

> Nobody credible said or believed Iran was making nuclear weapons.

Then why were they enriching uranium to levels well above what is needed for civilian purposes? You simply don't do that unless you intend to make nuclear weapons at some point.

> Iran had made it a fatwa against the Islamic law to develop such weapons and Obama had referenced that.

Iran obviously has the ability to lie, and regularly does so.

[UltraSane]

Many countries have nuclear power without any enrichment capability. Iran could try not being a pariah state and buy enriched uranium like many countries do. The only real reason to spend so much money and endure so much hardships for uranium enrichment is if they wanted at least the option to make nuclear weapons.

[solumunus]

They definitely wanted the option, that’s indisputable really.

[dmix]

There is still lots of evidence that Iran started enriching uranium towards weapons grade over the past decade. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64810145 Largely a legacy of Trump's sanctions failing to get a nuclear deal the first term and back firing. You'd have to be naive to think they don't want a bomb in the first place before that though.

Saddam played the same game where they pretended they just wanted nuclear for energy, even though they were a petrol state... which is why in 1981 Iran helped bomb Iraq's reactors (where Iran teamed up with Israel to do so) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

If Iran didn't believe Iraq's peaceful nuclear intentions, I'm not sure why anyone would believe Iran then buying tons of uranium from Russia was any different. Not to mention building underground lairs to enrich it while also building ICBMs.

[nixon_why69]

The best way to thread the needle I can see was that maintaining highly enriched uranium was a deterrance/bargaining strategy. Doesn't break the fatwa but sends a message. Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight.

[overfeed]

> Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight.

The JCPOA obviated the need for a nuke. It was a reasonable assumption that the US would honor its side of the agreement under the doctrine of continuity. Even in hindsight, you cannot have productive diplomacy without good faith

[jameshilliard]

> The JCPOA obviated the need for a nuke.

Iran really had no need for a nuke in the first place if they weren't constantly provoking the entire region, unless that need is destroying Israel.

> Even in hindsight, you cannot have productive diplomacy without good faith

Iran never really negotiates in good faith either, the JCPOA didn't really do anything at all to restrict their ballistic missile program and terrorist proxies.

[jameshilliard]

> Doesn't break the fatwa but sends a message. Obviously it wasn't successful, they should have either built a bomb or not bothered, in hindsight.

I think Israel and probably the US interpreted this tactic as Iran stalling until they Iran had the technology to build a nuclear ICBM.

[esalman]

It's a pressure campaign to get the Iranian leadership in one place so that Israel can bomb them again. There was a deal, the president cancelled it in his previous term.

[hersko]

> Nobody credible said or believed Iran was making nuclear weapons.

Tell that to Iran's former parliamentary deputy speaker who said 'When we began our nuclear activity, our goal was indeed to build a bomb. There is no need to beat around the bush.'[1]

[1] https://www.dailymail.com/sciencetech/article-15732615/iran-...

[cnd78A]

to be fair, I bet more human knows that USA is much more dangerous to the world "order" than Iran having a nuclear weapon (Pakistan and even Israel has it, so why not Iran and Mozambic too?)

[dmix]

> so why not Iran and Mozambic too?

Iran funds terrorism and conflict that impacts nearly every Muslim country around them and also in US, europe, canada, australia etc

If you want to build a bomb for sovereignty's sake, don't become an international pariah that openly and explicitly attacks wealthier and democratic world powers while you're doing it.

Iran's has demonstrated some of the worst strategic planning over the past two decades. Their economic planning has been just as bad

[sharts]

Is NYT even a credible source these days?

[khriss]

As opposed to the orange clown who changes his stance daily and sometimes hourly? Yeah, of course.

[don_esteban]

as opposed to media that don't tow the official US foreign policy line, and don't uncritically parrot the official US narrative?

[21asdffdsa12]

Anything that got us into this mess should be questioned.

[tim333]

They don't seem that bad. Trump shouting fake news whenever they say something he's not keen on doesn't necessarily make them non credible.

Looking on Wikipedia for NYT controversies it has them saying killing Palestinians may be bad and saying sex change ops for kids may be bad which don't seem especially terrible positions.