It was a defensive flight deploying defensive missiles and defensive bullets against offensive school children who were threatening other countries by being in their own country. Shooting back is an act of war that must be responded to.
(I would add that this is sarcasm, but it is reality for a lot of people sadly)
> Why does Iran have the right to fire drones into other countries?
If America hadn't started bombing Iran in the first place this wouldn't have happened anyway. Things would have been peaceful and oil prices would have been fine.
The pretense that has already been debunked you mean. Iran was nowhere near having nuclear weapons.
The purpose of the war was keeping Netanyahu in power by having a constant war going on. And Trump went along because he was promised a quick win which he could have used to turn his midterms around.
tristanj 3 hours ago [dead] | root | parent | next [–]
> Iran was nowhere near having nuclear weapons.
No, that's outdated. Iran had ~440kg of uranium enriched to 60%, enough for 9-10 nuclear weapons enriched to weapons grade. Given Iran's enormous centrifuge fleet, enrichment to enough material for a single weapons grade nuke would take 2-3 days. To enrich the entire amount would take 2-3 weeks.
Iran has had a stockpile of >100kg medium-enriched uranium for decades. The "enough for 9-10 nuclear weapons" scare line has been repeated since the 1990s, and it's not really any better of an argument today.
No, that's outdated. Iran had ~440kg of uranium enriched to 60%, enough for 9-10 nuclear weapons enriched to weapons grade. Given Iran's enormous centrifuge fleet, enrichment to enough material for a single weapons grade nuke would take 2-3 days. To enrich the entire amount would take 2-3 weeks.
The "reason" for this war was created by Trump in 2017 when the US left the agreement with Iran, while US intelligence agencies all testified to congress Iran was following the agreement and was not working towards a bomb. Then US imposed sanctions and Iran eventually started enrichment again.
JCPOA was a terribly designed deal, it never addressed the Iranian missile issue, which is arguably just as bad the Iranian nuclear issue.
While following JCPOA, Iran decided to build tens of thousands of conventional missiles and drones instead. Enough to swarm and overwhelm air defense systems. 1000 conventional missiles cause as much infrastructure damage as a single nuclear warhead. Iran basically bypassed JCPOA, and built the equivalent to a nuke with conventional weapons.
Obama had the choice to negotiate missile limits in JCPOA, but chose not to, because he wanted a quick politcal win, without realizing the future consequences.
And if you think paying a country tens of billions of dollars not to develop a nuke is a great deal, that incentives every other country to develop their own nuclear weapons.
Yeah you got me, Obama didn't solve everything in a first step of diplomacy in a 100+ year history of the west fucking over this country. Clearly the only solution is to keep attacking them because it has worked so well before. And keep letting the colonial project of Israel terrorize their neighbors. It's the only viable solution.
I don't think it's that simple. If it was, why hasn't the administration managed to focus on that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_2026_Iran_wa...
And your own comments say they also have a large arsenal of conventional weapons, so presumably they would be a threat without nukes. And the US already claimed to have fixed the nuclear problem last year.
And they torched JCPOA – even with your arguments it was weak, it appears to have been more effective than doing nothing for years and then spending billions to stop them when they, completely foreseeably, stop following an agreement that the US broke first. https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Ira...
I'm rambling and don't know all that much, so to the point of your question: the conflict started because Trump and his people wanted to, and it feels sort of pointlessly speculative and hopeful to ascribe your own interpretations beyond that.
I guess we'll see, if it really ends, and what the new regime, sanctions, nuclear enforcement, etc look like. If there are any career bureaucrats left, maybe they'll pull off something good.
The nuclear problem was never fixed; the nuclear material is still in Iran, and during the months since June 2025 Iran has had adequate time to dig out the buried fuel and move it to a more secure location.
The reason JCPOA got torched was because documents stolen by Mossad revealed Iran was caught systematically lying to the IAEA about the depth of its nuclear weapons program for decades. Iran operated multiple sites that Iran denied existed to the IAEA.
It started because Trump abandoned the agreement Obama signed and that was working, then sanctioned Iran for no good reason.
At this point, every country with the ability to do so should be procuring nuclear deterrence capability, if for no other reason than to defend themselves from the US.
Weird response that does some dodging of its own. Anyone defending JCPOA is obviously in favor of controlling nukes, so why don't you explain more than restating what we already agree with?
You're going to have to specifically address why ending the program with no replacement was better than letting it continue. Your other comments about cost, lack of conventional weapon limits, and perverse incentives for other countries doesn't do much for me. (For one thing, other countries aren't very relevant to this discussion, unless the cost of paying them off were to actually become prohibitive.) It was something, it had some positive effect on the "Iran can't have nukes" you keep harping on, and it was replaced with nothing but sanctions. Why wouldn't they resume development?
Or maybe Iran decided to start building nuclear weapons? They already have long range missiles, with enough range to strike most of Europe. Iran can place a nuclear warhead on one of these missiles, and they have an ICBM.
This entire conflict was fully avoidable if Iran never pursued nuclear weapons.
Why can't Iran just be a normal country, and not pursue nuclear weapons?
Iran would largely be left to itself if it did not pursue hostile foreign policy against countries in the region.
Is Iran in a better position after firing missiles at Azerbaijan, Oman, and Turkey? All three of these countries were neutral or friendly towards Iran, until Iran fired missiles at each unprompted.
Its current situation is largely self-inflicted, and a result of poor foreign policy choices.
> If anything, history shows that every country should pursue Nuclear weapons.
Why stop there, we should give every person on Earth nuclear weapons.
That policy will lead to world peace, since there will be no world left to live in.
> Iran would largely be left to itself if it did not pursue hostile foreign policy against countries in the region.
Yes, yes.
Like it was left to itself in the 50s and 70s.
Cool story bro.
> That policy will lead to world peace, since there will be no world left to live in.
You know what does not lead to world peace? A situation where the US believes it has free pass to bomb other countries and interfere on them unchecked.
I think they mean the Apache was there to shoot it down and managed to fly too close while blowing it up. On the plus side: blowing it up successfully. On the down side ... well that's why it's in the news.
This is why you don't used manned systems to hunt unmanned ones ...
(I would add that this is sarcasm, but it is reality for a lot of people sadly)