[wolvoleo]

> 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.

[tristanj]

And if the US/Israel didn't strike Iran, Iran would have ICBMs with nuclear warheads, which Iran could use for peace.

Did you forget the purpose of the war?

[Hikikomori]

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.

Such a dumb lie.

[tristanj]

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.

[Hikikomori]

>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.

Iran was never paid any money, sanctions were lifted. Are you able to state a truthful point at all?

[tristanj]

Did you conveniently forget what happened? To get Iran to agree to JCOPA, Obama gave Iran tens of billions to not develop nukes for 15 years.

In 2016, Iran was paid $1.7 billion in cash as a result of the nuclear deal, and regained control of $100-$150 billion in assets.

CNN: "US sent plane with $400 million in cash to Iran" Aug 4, 2016 https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-...

President Barack Obama approved the $400 million transfer, which he had announced in January as part of the Iran nuclear deal. The money was flown into Iran on wooden pallets stacked with Swiss francs, euros and other currencies as the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement.

US officials said cash had to be flown in because existing US sanctions ban American dollars from being used in a transaction with Iran and because Iran could not access the global financial system due to international sanctions it was under at the time.

The money was procured from central banks in Switzerland and the Netherlands, official said, and an unmarked cargo plane loaded with Swiss francs, euros and other currencies were flown to Iran.

At the same time [as the January cash delivery], the White House unfroze a larger pool of Iranian assets, estimated at $100 to $150 billion, as part of the nuclear deal, though administration officials cautioned that Iran would only pocket about $50 billion after legal claims.

[Hikikomori]

Did you even read the article? It was Irans money in the first place, paid to the US for military hardware it never delivered, plus interest. Do you believe that Iran getting access to their own money is them being paid? Do you understand what these words mean? Or would you say that moving money between your own accounts paying yourself?

>The $400 million was Iran’s to start with, placed into a US-based trust fund to support American military equipment purchases in the 1970s. When the Shah was ousted by a 1979 popular uprising that led to the creation of the Islamic Republic, the US froze the trust fund. Iran has been fighting for a return of the funds through international courts since 1981.

>Are you able to state a truthful point at all?

Seems like a firm no on this one. All you have done is spout right wing talking points that are not based in reality and are even dismantled by the very article you sent but didn't read past the headline. Perhaps take a step back and consider what you are doing and if you are living in reality or not.

[Hikikomori]

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.

[wolvoleo]

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.

[_DeadFred_]

Why does HN flag valid replies like this dead?

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.

This comes straight from the 2025 IAEA report.

https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enri...

[bigyabai]

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.

[tristanj]

You're conflating the old 'Iran is N months from a bomb' predictions (which you have good reason to be skeptical of) with documented IAEA stockpiles. Iran had 440.9 kg of 60% highly-enriched U on June 13, 2025 per the final IAEA report, and that is new material, not decades-old, since Iran didn't produce any 60% until April 2021. Iran had no 60% material prior to 2021.

60% enriched material is very highly enriched, it's approximately ~98-99% of the way to weapons grade, in terms of total work required.

[bigyabai]

Medium-enriched is generally defined as anything in the 10-90% enrichment range. The IAEA is extremely clear that Iran possessed medium-enriched uranium as far back as 2010: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/gov2011-6...

We all know how cascade enrichment works, having 20% or 60% enrichment is still not equivalent to having the bomb. It is directly commensurate to the "Iran is N weeks away from the bomb!" because people are just extrapolating enrichment time without any other metrics included.

[_DeadFred_]

Knowing the numbers we are talking about isn't a scare line. Knowing the related facts should not be downvoted to [dead] on HN. Hiding facts feels manipulative/propaganda-y and not Hacker News worthy. A comment like yours seems the more appropriate response wouldn't you agree?

[bigyabai]

> Knowing the numbers we are talking about

Which numbers? "enough for 9-10 nuclear weapons" is a stupid figure, you could come up with similar scare quotes for raw uranium ore if you extrapolated the refinement process. It's a dishonest tactic that has been tossed around for decades without much meaning.

The upstream claim that Iran would have ICBMs with nuclear warheads is just not true. Iran does not have any credible ICBM in their inventory, nor a known reentry vehicle, nor a strategy that would enable them to fight anyone besides regional powers like Israel. I did not flag their comments, but this kind of extraordinary "flood the zone" logic is consistent with what HN ends up flagging in the long run.

[tristanj]

It's automatic, the information trips the content filters.

[tristanj]

> 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.

This comes straight from the 2025 IAEA report.

https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enri...

[spiderfarmer]

"Thus, a renewed offer to retrieve Iran’s 60% enriched uranium “under the supervision of the Agency [IAEA],” as stated by Foreign Minister Araghchi, and to down-blend it to lower enrichment, along with a return to IAEA verification and monitoring as well as constraints on Iran’s future enrichment levels, would be extremely valuable and well worth bargaining for. "

Or, you could be very, very stupid and start bombing like maniacs. Without a plan, without allies and without justification.

During ongoing negotiations as well, making you SO UNBELIEVABLY untrustworthy that NO-ONE will EVER trust this idiotic regime ever again.

The stupidity is astounding.

[trymas]

Is this sarcasm?

Bibi says this for 30+ years and there are no ICBMs.

[tristanj]

My mistake, Iran presently only has IRBMs, not ICBMs.

Iran's nuclear-capable Khorramshahr-4 missile has a range of up to 4,000 km [0], and the requirement for an ICBM is above 5,500 km. So you are technically correct.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iranian_strike_on_Diego_G...