| Your argument here is disjointed. The claims that, 1) Iran does not desire a nuclear device, and 2) The United States was justified in striking the IRGC do nothing to refute the parent. "Practically" speaking, this deal is not any more potent than the JCPOA pinkie-promise. It returns us to the status quo of hoping that Iran doesn't develop a nuclear weapon, which was the exact same flimsy flypaper logic that failed to stop South Africa and North Korea from making their nukes. If the goal of this war is to denuclearize Iran, then it has failed on both accounts. Justified or not, the US air campaign eg. Midnight Hammer failed to prevent escalation and deprive Iran of access to their nuclear material. The domestic uranium mines, centrifuge factories, nuclear equipment stockpiles and underground missile cities all appear to have survived the strikes. Desire it or not, Iran has nuclear research within their reach, and Israel will continue to use it to manufacture support for a bloody land invasion. > they'd rather see Iran have a nuclear capability than admitting that the defanging of Iran's nuclear program has been a good thing for the world Again, this argument is disconnected. Nuclear proliferation is widely detested, which is why this war has been so seriously criticized. America's air campaign would not defang Iran's nuclear program, officers knew this going into the conflict and warned that the collateral damage would not be worth the outcome. Even if this conflict did succeed in deterring Iran from a nuclear bomb, then it's a return to the 2017-era status quo that Trump disrupted by ripping up the JCPOA. From a nonproliferation standpoint, this was a bloody and pointless war. |