57 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Remind us who Iraq was fighting a war in 1980 jimMC?

Iran, why?

I never said Iran haven't been in a war, reread my post.

Americans think every war will be over quickly.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea. All went on and on. Soldiers returning with no arms or legs ended those wars.

5 minutes ago, Purdey said:

Americans think every war will be over quickly.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea. All went on and on. Soldiers returning with no arms or legs ended those wars.

And many came back in body bags if they were not buried in a foreign soil that they had no personal interest in or hatred towards!!

3 minutes ago, JimCM said:

Iran, why?

I never said Iran haven't been in a war, reread my post.

A couple of straightforward questions:

1) Would you personally feel comfortable if Iran possessed nuclear weapons capability?

2) Do you believe citizens across the Middle East - in Gulf states, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, Saudi or elsewhere - would feel secure if Iran became a nuclear-armed state?

This issue is far more complex than simplified, idealistic narratives that frame it solely through the lens of opposition to Israel. It involves regional security architecture, proliferation risks, deterrence theory, and the historical conduct of the Iranian regime.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency - IAEA - Iran has enriched uranium to levels of up to 60% purity. Weapons-grade uranium is typically defined as roughly 90% enrichment. The technical leap from 60% to 90% is significantly smaller than the leap from natural uranium to 60%.

The IAEA has also reported that Iran’s stockpile of 60% enriched uranium has grown substantially in recent years and IF further enriched, such quantities are sufficient for multiple nuclear devices. Iran has restricted international inspections and monitoring access and avoided transparency.

Might intelligence assessments available to governments contain information beyond what is publicly disclosed ??? That would explain the recent escalation in rhetoric and military posture.

Beyond enrichment levels, context also matters. The Islamic Republic has repeatedly issued hostile statements toward both the United States and Israel. It has supported and armed proxy groups across the region - including in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen - and has demonstrated a willingness to strike targets beyond its own borders. These actions shape the threat perception of neighbouring states.

Domestically, human rights organisations have documented severe repression inside Iran, including large-scale arrests, executions, and lethal force used against protesters during recent nationwide uprisings - an estimated 20,000 to 36,000 citizens have been assassinated during the 2025-2026 uprising (Iran International / CBS News estimates). Estimates of casualties and executions do vary, but credible international bodies have recorded extensive human rights violations - 10,000 citizens at the low range.

From a strategic standpoint, there is an argument that allowing such a regime to acquire nuclear weapons - or even retain a threshold enrichment would trigger a regional arms race.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with current military responses, the concern is not abstract ideology. It is rooted in enrichment levels, inspection limitations, regional proxy warfare, and the historical behaviour of the Iranian state.

That is why, for many governments in the region and beyond, the question is not political preference - it is risk calculation - Iran cannot have nuclear weapons or anything close to them.

From an idealistic perspective, the Islamic Republic of Iran is viewed by many critics as a deeply authoritarian regime in need of fundamental change. In some areas people have been seen dancing and gathering in defiance - because some believe the regime hold on power may be weakening - they see light at the end of a dark tunnel.

33 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

A couple of straightforward questions:

1) Would you personally feel comfortable if Iran possessed nuclear weapons capability?

2) Do you believe citizens across the Middle East - in Gulf states, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, Saudi or elsewhere - would feel secure if Iran became a nuclear-armed state?

This issue is far more complex than simplified, idealistic narratives that frame it solely through the lens of opposition to Israel. It involves regional security architecture, proliferation risks, deterrence theory, and the historical conduct of the Iranian regime.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency - IAEA - Iran has enriched uranium to levels of up to 60% purity. Weapons-grade uranium is typically defined as roughly 90% enrichment. The technical leap from 60% to 90% is significantly smaller than the leap from natural uranium to 60%.

The IAEA has also reported that Iran’s stockpile of 60% enriched uranium has grown substantially in recent years and IF further enriched, such quantities are sufficient for multiple nuclear devices. Iran has restricted international inspections and monitoring access and avoided transparency.

Might intelligence assessments available to governments contain information beyond what is publicly disclosed ??? That would explain the recent escalation in rhetoric and military posture.

Beyond enrichment levels, context also matters. The Islamic Republic has repeatedly issued hostile statements toward both the United States and Israel. It has supported and armed proxy groups across the region - including in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen - and has demonstrated a willingness to strike targets beyond its own borders. These actions shape the threat perception of neighbouring states.

Domestically, human rights organisations have documented severe repression inside Iran, including large-scale arrests, executions, and lethal force used against protesters during recent nationwide uprisings - an estimated 20,000 to 36,000 citizens have been assassinated during the 2025-2026 uprising (Iran International / CBS News estimates). Estimates of casualties and executions do vary, but credible international bodies have recorded extensive human rights violations - 10,000 citizens at the low range.

From a strategic standpoint, there is an argument that allowing such a regime to acquire nuclear weapons - or even retain a threshold enrichment would trigger a regional arms race.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with current military responses, the concern is not abstract ideology. It is rooted in enrichment levels, inspection limitations, regional proxy warfare, and the historical behaviour of the Iranian state.

That is why, for many governments in the region and beyond, the question is not political preference - it is risk calculation - Iran cannot have nuclear weapons or anything close to them.

From an idealistic perspective, the Islamic Republic of Iran is viewed by many critics as a deeply authoritarian regime in need of fundamental change. In some areas people have been seen dancing and gathering in defiance - because some believe the regime hold on power may be weakening - they see light at the end of a dark tunnel.

If Israel and the United States are permitted to have nuclear weapons, it is difficult to argue in principle that Iran should be permanently denied the same capability purely on the basis of power politics. Nuclear deterrence has historically operated on the logic that possession prevents large-scale war rather than causes it.

ALSO, Iran has not initiated a conventional interstate war in over two centuries. That doesn’t mean its regional behavior is benign(it does support allies like Hezbollah), but it complicates the narrative that it is uniquely reckless compared with other nuclear-armed states.

You ask whether I would feel comfortable with Iran having nuclear capability. Personally, I am not comfortable with any state possessing nuclear weapons. The real issue is whether proliferation increases or decreases overall risk. Some argue deterrence stabilizes; others argue it escalates and increases the chance of miscalculation.

History also urges caution. The Iraq WMD case shows how intelligence assessments and worst-case assumptions can lead to catastrophic outcomes. The invasion cost trillions of dollars, destabilized the region, and created the vacuum in which Al-Qaeda in Iraq - later evolving into ISIS - was able to expand. The collapse of state structures and sectarian conflict fueled extremist movements that carried out devastating attacks regionally and internationally. That history makes many people wary of intelligence-based justifications for escalation.

And, Israel is undeniably central to this equation. Iran’s nuclear posture, Israel’s undeclared but widely assumed nuclear capability, and the broader U.S.- Israel strategic relationship are deeply intertwined. For many in Tehran, the issue is framed as deterrence against Israel. For Israel, it is framed as an existential threat. That mutual perception drives much of the escalation.  

This is not about being pro- or anti-any one country. It is about consistency, deterrence theory, regional security architecture, historical precedent, and the long-term consequences of escalation. 

14 minutes ago, JimCM said:

. Personally, I am not comfortable with any state possessing nuclear weapons.

So, you side with Israel/USA trying to stop Iran from obtaining Nukes

20 minutes ago, JimCM said:

If Israel and the United States are permitted to have nuclear weapons, it is difficult to argue in principle that Iran should be permanently denied the same capability purely on the basis of power politics. Nuclear deterrence has historically operated on the logic that possession prevents large-scale war rather than causes it.

ALSO, Iran has not initiated a conventional interstate war in over two centuries. That doesn’t mean its regional behavior is benign(it does support allies like Hezbollah), but it complicates the narrative that it is uniquely reckless compared with other nuclear-armed states.

You ask whether I would feel comfortable with Iran having nuclear capability. Personally, I am not comfortable with any state possessing nuclear weapons. The real issue is whether proliferation increases or decreases overall risk. Some argue deterrence stabilizes; others argue it escalates and increases the chance of miscalculation.

History also urges caution. The Iraq WMD case shows how intelligence assessments and worst-case assumptions can lead to catastrophic outcomes. The invasion cost trillions of dollars, destabilized the region, and created the vacuum in which Al-Qaeda in Iraq - later evolving into ISIS - was able to expand. The collapse of state structures and sectarian conflict fueled extremist movements that carried out devastating attacks regionally and internationally. That history makes many people wary of intelligence-based justifications for escalation.

And, Israel is undeniably central to this equation. Iran’s nuclear posture, Israel’s undeclared but widely assumed nuclear capability, and the broader U.S.- Israel strategic relationship are deeply intertwined. For many in Tehran, the issue is framed as deterrence against Israel. For Israel, it is framed as an existential threat. That mutual perception drives much of the escalation.  

This is not about being pro- or anti-any one country. It is about consistency, deterrence theory, regional security architecture, historical precedent, and the long-term consequences of escalation. 

Yanks saved your ass in ww2 with nukes. Show some gratitude.

22 minutes ago, JimCM said:

If Israel and the United States are permitted to have nuclear weapons, it is difficult to argue in principle that Iran should be permanently denied the same capability purely on the basis of power politics. Nuclear deterrence has historically operated on the logic that possession prevents large-scale war rather than causes it.

ALSO, Iran has not initiated a conventional interstate war in over two centuries. That doesn’t mean its regional behavior is benign(it does support allies like Hezbollah), but it complicates the narrative that it is uniquely reckless compared with other nuclear-armed states.

You ask whether I would feel comfortable with Iran having nuclear capability. Personally, I am not comfortable with any state possessing nuclear weapons. The real issue is whether proliferation increases or decreases overall risk. Some argue deterrence stabilizes; others argue it escalates and increases the chance of miscalculation.

History also urges caution. The Iraq WMD case shows how intelligence assessments and worst-case assumptions can lead to catastrophic outcomes. The invasion cost trillions of dollars, destabilized the region, and created the vacuum in which Al-Qaeda in Iraq - later evolving into ISIS - was able to expand. The collapse of state structures and sectarian conflict fueled extremist movements that carried out devastating attacks regionally and internationally. That history makes many people wary of intelligence-based justifications for escalation.

And, Israel is undeniably central to this equation. Iran’s nuclear posture, Israel’s undeclared but widely assumed nuclear capability, and the broader U.S.- Israel strategic relationship are deeply intertwined. For many in Tehran, the issue is framed as deterrence against Israel. For Israel, it is framed as an existential threat. That mutual perception drives much of the escalation.  

This is not about being pro- or anti-any one country. It is about consistency, deterrence theory, regional security architecture, historical precedent, and the long-term consequences of escalation. 

You haven’t really answered the core questions.

- Would you personally feel comfortable if Iran possessed nuclear weapons capability?

- And do you genuinely believe citizens across the Gulf - in Jordan, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and beyond - would feel secure living beside a nuclear-armed Iranian regime?

Saying you would prefer a world without nuclear weapons avoids the reality we face. Proliferation does not occur in a vacuum - it occurs in specific political contexts.

Iran has enriched uranium to 60 percent, a level far beyond civilian energy needs, and has limited IAEA monitoring at various stages. It funds and arms regional proxies including Hezbollah and has directly launched missiles at neighbouring states. That is the context in which its nuclear ambitions are judged.

The Iraq WMD failure rightly demands caution - intelligence can be wrong, and wars can have catastrophic unintended consequences. The invasion destabilised the region and the power vacuum contributed to the rise of ISIS. But the lesson from Iraq is not that all intelligence warnings are fabricated or that regimes pursuing advanced enrichment programmes should be ignored. It is that decisions must be grounded in credible evidence and strategic clarity.

While Israel is a facet of this equation, the threat perception runs both ways. Israel’s nuclear capability and its doctrine is framed around survival in a hostile region. Iran’s leadership, meanwhile, has repeatedly called for the end of the Israeli state while building missile capacity and supporting armed groups on Israel’s borders. Iran does not face an openly declared Israeli plan to annihilate the Iranian state; Israel argues it seeks to prevent its own destruction.

This is not a question of idealism or double standards in the abstract. It is about whether adding another nuclear-threshold state - one engaged in regional proxy warfare and advanced enrichment beyond civilian norms - reduces risk through deterrence or increases the chance of escalation, miscalculation and a regional arms race.

That is the strategic dilemma at the heart of the debate - but I don't really think its much of a dilemma at all - Iran cannot be permitted to have nuclear weapon, whether thats idealistically distasteful or not.

Additionally, much like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran governs through a highly securitised system built on coercion, ideological control and severe restrictions on political dissent. Human rights organisations have documented mass arrests, executions and violent crackdowns on protesters, particularly during the 2025-2026 nationwide uprisings.

While it would be inaccurate to claim that every Iranian holds the same view, there is clear and visible opposition inside the country - especially among younger generations - who have repeatedly risked imprisonment and death to challenge a highly oppressive regime.

If the nuclear issue alone is not seen as sufficient grounds for action, some argue that the regime’s repression of its own people presents a separate moral case, given documented executions, crackdowns and severe restrictions on basic freedoms. However, whether external powers should intervene in how a country is governed remains highly controversial under international law, where sovereignty is a core principle and forced regime change has often produced destabilising consequences. The debate ultimately sits between non-intervention and the argument that certain behaviour - whether regional aggression or systemic repression - has consequences that extend beyond a state’s borders.

On a humanitarian level, I would welcome the Iranian people being free from a regime that has repeatedly met dissent with repression and force, much as many Iraqis felt relief at the end of Saddam Hussein’s rule - even though the aftermath brought instability, the rise of ISIS and continued regional interference, from which Iraq is still working to stabilise.

13 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You haven’t really answered the core questions.

- Would you personally feel comfortable if Iran possessed nuclear weapons capability?

- And do you genuinely believe citizens across the Gulf - in Jordan, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and beyond - would feel secure living beside a nuclear-armed Iranian regime?

Saying you would prefer a world without nuclear weapons avoids the reality we face. Proliferation does not occur in a vacuum - it occurs in specific political contexts.

Iran has enriched uranium to 60 percent, a level far beyond civilian energy needs, and has limited IAEA monitoring at various stages. It funds and arms regional proxies including Hezbollah and has directly launched missiles at neighbouring states. That is the context in which its nuclear ambitions are judged.

The Iraq WMD failure rightly demands caution - intelligence can be wrong, and wars can have catastrophic unintended consequences. The invasion destabilised the region and the power vacuum contributed to the rise of ISIS. But the lesson from Iraq is not that all intelligence warnings are fabricated or that regimes pursuing advanced enrichment programmes should be ignored. It is that decisions must be grounded in credible evidence and strategic clarity.

While Israel is a facet of this equation, the threat perception runs both ways. Israel’s nuclear capability and its doctrine is framed around survival in a hostile region. Iran’s leadership, meanwhile, has repeatedly called for the end of the Israeli state while building missile capacity and supporting armed groups on Israel’s borders. Iran does not face an openly declared Israeli plan to annihilate the Iranian state; Israel argues it seeks to prevent its own destruction.

This is not a question of idealism or double standards in the abstract. It is about whether adding another nuclear-threshold state - one engaged in regional proxy warfare and advanced enrichment beyond civilian norms - reduces risk through deterrence or increases the chance of escalation, miscalculation and a regional arms race.

That is the strategic dilemma at the heart of the debate - but I don't really think its much of a dilemma at all - Iran cannot be permitted to have nuclear weapon, whether thats idealistically distasteful or not.

Additionally, much like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran governs through a highly securitised system built on coercion, ideological control and severe restrictions on political dissent. Human rights organisations have documented mass arrests, executions and violent crackdowns on protesters, particularly during the 2025-2026 nationwide uprisings.

While it would be inaccurate to claim that every Iranian holds the same view, there is clear and visible opposition inside the country - especially among younger generations - who have repeatedly risked imprisonment and death to challenge a highly oppressive regime.

If the nuclear issue alone is not seen as sufficient grounds for action, some argue that the regime’s repression of its own people presents a separate moral case, given documented executions, crackdowns and severe restrictions on basic freedoms. However, whether external powers should intervene in how a country is governed remains highly controversial under international law, where sovereignty is a core principle and forced regime change has often produced destabilising consequences. The debate ultimately sits between non-intervention and the argument that certain behaviour - whether regional aggression or systemic repression - has consequences that extend beyond a state’s borders.

On a humanitarian level, I would welcome the Iranian people being free from a regime that has repeatedly met dissent with repression and force, much as many Iraqis felt relief at the end of Saddam Hussein’s rule - even though the aftermath brought instability, the rise of ISIS and continued regional interference, from which Iraq is still working to stabilise.

One question, do you think North Korea should have nuclear weapons but not Iran? Do you feel threatened?

IT'S ALL ABOUT ISRAEL. Do you agree?

Because Iran is a peaceful country, I would feel safe if they had nuclear weapons. You say I haven’t answered the core questions - but I think there are deeper ones underneath them.

Do you believe countries in the region would truly feel safer if Iran had no meaningful deterrent while Israel maintains nuclear weapons and full US backing?

Is nuclear deterrence only stabilising when held by US allies, but inherently destabilising when held by their adversaries?

You frame this purely around Iranian behaviour, but context matters. Israel has possessed undeclared nuclear weapons for decades and has never signed the NPT. Since 1967, it has expanded settlements in occupied territories widely considered illegal under international law. Senior Israeli leaders are currently the subject of international legal scrutiny regarding conduct in Gaza. Whether one agrees with those charges or not, they are not fringe accusations.

So another question:

If international law and non-proliferation norms apply universally, should they not apply equally to Israel as well as Iran?

You also argue Iran’s rhetoric shapes threat perception. That’s true. But threat perception runs both ways. Iran’s hostility toward the US did not emerge in a vacuum - the 1953 CIA-backed coup, decades of sanctions, and the “Axis of Evil” doctrine are part of that memory. That history feeds distrust on all sides.

This debate cannot be reduced to “Iran bad, Israel defensive.” The strategic dilemma cuts both ways.

The real question may be:

Does permanent nuclear asymmetry create long-term stability - or does it create the very incentives for proliferation that we claim to oppose?

The USA is about 250 years old, Iran is about 2500 years old, let's see who is still there in another 100 years.

To the yanks, you gotta stop believing the Israeli propaganda. It's hard I know when the president lied about seeing beheaded babies after October 7, mass tapes and all that other nonsense, when, as the head of UN said, that prison break out didn't happen in a vacuum. You guys caused all the problems with resistance groups or freedom fighters with you unwarranted aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

Best thing you can do is stop supporting the terrorist state of Israel, put limits on how much money the Israel lobby donate, and inhumane attrocities like sending 20,000 lb bombs that have killed 100,000 innocent people, most of whom were women and children.

6 minutes ago, JimCM said:

The USA is about 250 years old, Iran is about 2500 years old, let's see who is still there in another 100 years.

To the yanks, you gotta stop believing the Israeli propaganda. It's hard I know when the president lied about seeing beheaded babies after October 7, mass tapes and all that other nonsense, when, as the head of UN said, that prison break out didn't happen in a vacuum. You guys caused all the problems with resistance groups or freedom fighters with you unwarranted aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

Best thing you can do is stop supporting the terrorist state of Israel, put limits on how much money the Israel lobby donate, and inhumane attrocities like sending 20,000 lb bombs that have killed 100,000 innocent people, most of whom were women and children.

Judaism is 3500 years old. The terror cult is 1400 years old. The yanks should nuke Iran to be honest. Japan turned good after ww2.

32 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

Judaism is 3500 years old. The terror cult is 1400 years old. The yanks should nuke Iran to be honest. Japan turned good after ww2.

What a disgusting, off topic piece of drunken tripe.

1 minute ago, JimCM said:

What a disgusting, off topic piece of drunken tripe.

I see you are a alarmist who supports terrorists.

Iran has been officially designated by the U.S. State Department as a leading state sponsor of terrorism since 1984, providing funding, weapons, and training to various militant groups. Through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), Iran supports groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and various militias in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.

2 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

I see you are a alarmist who supports terrorists.

What terrorists do I support?

1 minute ago, khaosokman said:

Iran has been officially designated by the U.S. State Department as a leading state sponsor of terrorism since 1984, providing funding, weapons, and training to various militant groups. Through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), Iran supports groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and various militias in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.

The USA supports Israel, who are the terrorists. You've probably never heard of Irgun or King David hotel but maybe you've heard of Queen Elizabeth, who refused to set foot on Israeli soul.

Are you a Jew or just a racist Islamophobe?

Just now, JimCM said:

The USA supports Israel, who are the terrorists. You've probably never heard of Irgun or King David hotel but maybe you've heard of Queen Elizabeth, who refused to set foot on Israeli soul.

Are you a Jew or just a racist Islamophobe?

Go join the Iranian army. You clearly are a terror supporter. You have no business in the west.

israel fighting against terror since 1948

+10

Since its establishment in 1948, the State of Israel has engaged in a continuous, multi-faceted struggle against terrorism and security threats, originating from both neighboring states and non-state militant groups

. This battle has spanned conventional wars, asymmetric warfare, intelligence operations, and the development of a specialized legal framework. 

Wikipedia +4

Historical Context and Evolution

• 1948–1950s: Immediately following its declaration of independence, Israel faced threats from surrounding Arab nations and local Palestinian opposition, as well as violent activities from internal Jewish extremist groups. The state's first major anti-terrorism legislation, the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, was enacted in 1948.

• Fedayeen and Border Conflicts (1950s–60s): The 1950s were marked by fedayeen raids—paramilitary commando attacks—into Israel from neighboring Arab countries, particularly from the Egyptian-administered Gaza Strip.

• Rise of Palestinian Militancy (1960s–80s): The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) emerged as a major actor, utilizing tactics such as airplane hijackings and militant attacks. This era included the 1982 Lebanon War, launched in response to terror attacks and to curb PLO activity.

• Intifadas (1987–2005): The First (1987–1993) and Second (2000–2005) Intifadas saw a shift toward widespread violent protests, suicide bombings, and urban attacks, leading to the construction of the West Bank security barrier.

• Gaza and Regional Threats (2006–Present): Following the 2005 disengagement from Gaza, Israel has faced sustained rocket fire and conflicts with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, resulting in multiple, large-scale operations. The October 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas marked the deadliest, most significant, and complex terrorist attack in Israel's history since 1948. 

1 hour ago, JimCM said:

One question, do you think North Korea should have nuclear weapons but not Iran? Do you feel threatened?

Different question - I do not think North Korea should be permitted nuclear weapons.

Yes - they are a potential threat to the region.

1 hour ago, JimCM said:

IT'S ALL ABOUT ISRAEL. Do you agree?

No, its not 'all' about Israel - I don't agree. Israel is part of the jigsaw.

1 hour ago, JimCM said:

Because Iran is a peaceful country, I would feel safe if they had nuclear weapons.

I do not believe the Iranian population to be peaceful - I do not believe the Islamic Republic of Iran to be a peaceful government.

1 hour ago, JimCM said:

You say I haven’t answered the core questions - but I think there are deeper ones underneath them.

Agreed - the Middle East issue runs deeper than can be debated on this forum.

1 hour ago, JimCM said:

Do you believe countries in the region would truly feel safer if Iran had no meaningful deterrent while Israel maintains nuclear weapons and full US backing?

Is nuclear deterrence only stabilising when held by US allies, but inherently destabilising when held by their adversaries?

Yes - because I believe this to be the core of the issue - more so than Israel.

The Iranian state claims to care about Palestine and acts on that claim through funding and support for armed Palestinian factions, but this is deeply intertwined with ideological messaging and geopolitical strategy rather than purely altruistic humanitarian support.

1 hour ago, JimCM said:

You frame this purely around Iranian behaviour, but context matters. Israel has possessed undeclared nuclear weapons for decades and has never signed the NPT. Since 1967, it has expanded settlements in occupied territories widely considered illegal under international law. Senior Israeli leaders are currently the subject of international legal scrutiny regarding conduct in Gaza. Whether one agrees with those charges or not, they are not fringe accusations.

So another question:

If international law and non-proliferation norms apply universally, should they not apply equally to Israel as well as Iran?

Context does matter - and I agree that international law and non-proliferation norms should apply universally, not selectively. Israel’s undeclared nuclear capability, its refusal to sign the NPT, and the legal scrutiny over settlements and Gaza are all legitimate issues. Those aren’t fringe concerns and they shouldn’t be dismissed.

But the situations aren’t identical. Israel never signed the NPT - Iran did. That changes the legal argument. It’s one thing to criticise a state that stayed outside a treaty framework, it’s another to ignore a state that signed it and is now enriching uranium to levels far beyond civilian need while restricting inspections. That distinction matters. So does behaviour. Israel is not openly calling for the destruction of Iran, whereas senior figures in Iran have repeatedly framed Israel’s existence as illegitimate while funding and arming groups on its borders.

So yes, the standards should be universal in principle. But the risk calculations governments make are based on treaty obligations, current conduct, declared intent and regional activity - not just abstract symmetry.

1 hour ago, JimCM said:

You also argue Iran’s rhetoric shapes threat perception. That’s true. But threat perception runs both ways. Iran’s hostility toward the US did not emerge in a vacuum - the 1953 CIA-backed coup, decades of sanctions, and the “Axis of Evil” doctrine are part of that memory. That history feeds distrust on all sides.

This debate cannot be reduced to “Iran bad, Israel defensive.” The strategic dilemma cuts both ways.

The real question may be:

Does permanent nuclear asymmetry create long-term stability - or does it create the very incentives for proliferation that we claim to oppose?

History matters - the 1953 coup, sanctions, the “Axis of Evil” label all shape Iran’s distrust. But history explains behaviour, it doesn’t automatically justify advancing enrichment to 60%, expanding missile programmes and backing armed proxies across the region.

This isn’t “Iran bad, Israel innocent” It’s a security dilemma. But there’s a difference between Israel’s long-standing, opaque nuclear posture and an active programme moving closer to weapons-grade capability while still inside the NPT framework. That affects how risk is judged today.

Yes, permanent asymmetry may create incentives for proliferation. But adding another nuclear-threshold state to an already volatile region could just as easily increase the risk of escalation and miscalculation.

Whether its fair that Israel has nuclear weapons or not is not a sound argument for allowing Iran the same freedom - Iran should not have Nuclear weapons under its current regime.

Awright, US-Nato-Israel has neutralized 63 Iranian school girls. You go Axis of Evil.

2 hours ago, khaosokman said:

Yanks saved your ass in ww2 with nukes. Show some gratitude.

History not exactly your strong suit is it.

Didn't go to Trump University by any chance did you.

11 minutes ago, Autocan said:

Awright, US-Nato-Israel has neutralized 63 Iranian school girls. You go Axis of Evil.

Nothing to do with NATO this is 100% Trump and Israel.

3 minutes ago, JimCM said:

Time to boycott USA and Israel.

It's all about Israel, and the Israel lobby determines US policy in the ME.

Netanyahu has to be taken out, as well as his ultra fundamentalist cabinet, who are religious nutters.

If the hidden Iman

1 hour ago, khaosokman said:

Iran has been officially designated by the U.S. State Department as a leading state sponsor of terrorism since 1984, providing funding, weapons, and training to various militant groups. Through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), Iran supports groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and various militias in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.

Iran's crime and it's no worse and quite a lot better than say headchopppers in Saudi where Judasim is officially banned is to have one the largest oil reserves in the world and not bend the knee to Uncle Sam - that and the fact that Israel pretty much controls the USA and punts their own narrow sectional interest which lead to the major source of instability in the Middle East. Isreal is a genocidal terrorist state. Oh Trump and his War Department led by alcoholic Hegseth are far short of competent. So there is no logic just Netanhayu whispering in Trump's ear.

Opinion -NYT

Nicholas Kristof

The Folly of Attacking Iran

Look, we all need some humility about what lies ahead. Doves like me have been right about some uses of force (such as the Iraq war) but wrong about others (such as the Iraq war surge). As I weigh the benefits and costs of this new war with Iran, I fear that we have sleepwalked into yet another perilous folly in the Middle East.

When you’ve witnessed the horror of war, you believe it should be a last resort — not an abyss we tumble into without legal basis or clear objectives, pushing us all unnecessarily into a riskier world in which the only certainty is bloodshed.

https://archive.ph/QQcQe#selection-312.1-513.27

Jacob HeilbrunnThe Iran strikes might be Trump’s Sarajevo moment -SPECTATOR

https://spectator.com/article/is-this-trumps-sarajevo-moment-iran/?set_edition=en

Trump’s move is based in the conviction that he can restore American primacy by dislodging the mad mullahs from Tehran. If, as seems likely, his venture goes awry, then Trump, and Trump alone, will have delivered a body blow to American power, prestige and predominance. This will be hardly the first that he will have bankrupted a going concern. That is something of a speciality of his. But the story of how Trump became George W. Bush on steroids will be the central one of his second presidency. It is no small irony that the president who vowed to end the forever wars in the Middle East may well have embarked upon a fresh one.

3 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Iran's crime and it's no worse and quite a lot better than say headchopppers in Saudi where Judasim is officially banned is to have one the largest oil reserves in the world and not bend the knee to Uncle Sam - that and the fact that Israel pretty much controls the USA and punts their own narrow sectional interest which lead to the major source of instability in the Middle East. Isreal is a genocidal terrorist state.

Which country has Israel officially sworn to wipe off the map?

You can criticise Israeli policy all day long - settlements, Gaza, proportionality - fine. Those are real debates. But there is no formal Israeli doctrine calling for the destruction of Iran as a nation.

Meanwhile, senior figures in Iran have publicly called for Israel to be removed from existence. In 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel should be “wiped off the map”, this sentiment reflected an explicit rejection of Israel’s right to exist - plain and simple. Iran’s Supreme Leader has repeatedly described Israel as a “cancerous tumour” that will eventually be eliminated. That difference in language and declared intent is not trivial - it directly shapes how threats are perceived and assessed.

...And look at the region. Saudi, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain - and even Iraq now to a degree - maintain close security ties with the US. That’s not because they’ve been hypnotised by Washington. It’s because they live next door to Iran. They’ve seen missile strikes, proxy militias, drone attacks and political interference.

Their alignment is about survival and stability, not ideology.

Geography forces realism. The countries closest to Iran are making hard security choices for a reason.

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Which country has Israel officially sworn to wipe off the map?

You can criticise Israeli policy all day long - settlements, Gaza, proportionality - fine. Those are real debates. But there is no formal Israeli doctrine calling for the destruction of Iran as a nation.

Meanwhile, senior figures in Iran have publicly called for Israel to be removed from existence. In 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel should be “wiped off the map”, this sentiment reflected an explicit rejection of Israel’s right to exist - plain and simple. Iran’s Supreme Leader has repeatedly described Israel as a “cancerous tumour” that will eventually be eliminated. That difference in language and declared intent is not trivial - it directly shapes how threats are perceived and assessed.

...And look at the region. Saudi, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain - and even Iraq now to a degree - maintain close security ties with the US. That’s not because they’ve been hypnotised by Washington. It’s because they live next door to Iran. They’ve seen missile strikes, proxy militias, drone attacks and political interference.

Their alignment is about survival and stability, not ideology.

Geography forces realism. The countries closest to Iran are making hard security choices for a reason.

Does 'declared intent' always equal actual policy? One could argue that while Iran uses fiery language, Israel’s actual military actions the targeted assassinations on Iranian soil, the Stuxnet cyberattacks, and the current strikes constitute a 'de facto' doctrine of destruction regardless of what is officially written on paper.

You mention the Gulf states choosing stability, but is a region-wide war involving the US and Israel actually providing that stability? Many would argue the current escalation is proving the opposite that the 'hard security choices' are actually accelerating the very collapse everyone was trying to avoid. Whilst the US had effective global hegemonic power the corrupt dynasties of the Gulf States made the easy choice of fealty to the US to protect their own narrow interests. Recent Saudi overtures to China and UAE to Russia show there is a direction of travel to having alternaives. Maybe at some level the US wants to thwart that with a show of power.

If the US had stayed out of WW1 there would probably not have been WW2 , Bolshevism and all the ills that flowed from them. Their unique wealth and exceptionalism and a desire to project it on the world are one of the major causes of misery in this century and the last. They have 5% of the world's popualtion and consume 25% of the resources - they are a cancer in the global ecosystem oh and they are the only country on earth to drop 2 atomic bombs on major cities.

Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is gonna win!

10 hours ago, JackGats said:

I'm all for disposing of Khamenei, but attacking while negotiations are going on is not cricket

The Iranians were not negotiating in good faith. The same proposals had been in discussion for months, wwith the Iranians simply engaging in delaying actions. This was a typical Iranian negotiating strategy: Pretend to talk, but not offering or saying anything of importance.

The USA believes that it faced an imminent threat from Iran. It will be interesting to see what it was. Several members of the senior US Congressional leadership have said they saw the evidence.

In the past, Iran had experimented with launching missiles from civilian freighters, much like a scenario from a James Bond film. Iran has been locked in conflict with the KSA and UAE over Yemen and it has been actively involved in attempts to overthrow the ruler of Bahrain, encouraging the Shiites to rise up against the Sunnis. Perhaps Iran had been planning something.

31 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Does 'declared intent' always equal actual policy? One could argue that while Iran uses fiery language, Israel’s actual military actions the targeted assassinations on Iranian soil, the Stuxnet cyberattacks, and the current strikes constitute a 'de facto' doctrine of destruction regardless of what is officially written on paper.

You mention the Gulf states choosing stability, but is a region-wide war involving the US and Israel actually providing that stability? Many would argue the current escalation is proving the opposite that the 'hard security choices' are actually accelerating the very collapse everyone was trying to avoid. Whilst the US had effective global hegemonic power the corrupt dynasties of the Gulf States made the easy choice of fealty to the US to protect their own narrow interests. Recent Saudi overtures to China and UAE to Russia show there is a direction of travel to having alternaives. Maybe at some level the US wants to thwart that with a show of power.

If the US had stayed out of WW1 there would probably not have been WW2 , Bolshevism and all the ills that flowed from them. Their unique wealth and exceptionalism and a desire to project it on the world are one of the major causes of misery in this century and the last. They have 5% of the world's popualtion and consume 25% of the resources - they are a cancer in the global ecosystem oh and they are the only country on earth to drop 2 atomic bombs on major cities.

Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is gonna win!

Declared intent doesn’t always equal policy - that’s true. States sometimes posture. But intent does matter when it’s repeated over decades, embedded in official doctrine, and paired with material support for armed groups on a neighbour’s borders. Iran hasn’t just used fiery language; it has funded and armed Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other militias that have directly engaged Israel. That combination of rhetoric plus proxy capability shapes how Israel calculates risk.

On Israel’s actions - targeted assassinations, Stuxnet, airstrikes - those are real and documented. But they’ve largely been aimed at delaying nuclear and missile development or disrupting IRGC operations in Syria. That’s very different from a stated objective of erasing Iran as a country. You can call it aggressive containment. It’s not the same as a declared annihilation doctrine.

As for Gulf states, they aren’t naive or coerced. They hedge - yes, Saudi talks to China, the UAE engages Russia - but when missiles fly, they still rely on US air defence and intelligence. That tells you where they think the hard security guarantees actually sit. Alignment in the Gulf is about regime survival and threat proximity, not ideological love for Washington.

Your broader anti-US argument mixes legitimate criticism with overreach. The US has made serious mistakes - Iraq being a prime example - but it has also underwritten global trade routes, security alliances and energy stability for decades. It’s not uniquely virtuous, but it’s not uniquely malignant either. History is more complicated than “if the US stayed out, everything would have been fine”.

The 20th century had plenty of actors driving catastrophe long before and beyond Washington’s involvement.

We can criticise power without rewriting complexity into a single villain narrative.

I’m not pro-America - far from it. It’s more a case of better the devil you know. The US has major flaws, has made serious mistakes, and often acts in its own interests first. But when you look at the realistic alternatives - whether that’s a China-led security order, a Russia-aligned bloc, or a vacuum filled by regional powers acting without constraint - I’m not convinced the outcome is more stable or more liberal.

It would be nice if the topic title was corrected to be more accurate and to reflect the source of the story.

US and Israel launch a major attack on Iran.

Most of the airstrikes have been carried out by the USA, not Israel. Israel has been using its limited air capabilities for targeting critical command and control locations.

2 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Does 'declared intent' always equal actual policy? One could argue that while Iran uses fiery language, Israel’s actual military actions the targeted assassinations on Iranian soil, the Stuxnet cyberattacks, and the current strikes constitute a 'de facto' doctrine of destruction regardless of what is officially written on paper.

You mention the Gulf states choosing stability, but is a region-wide war involving the US and Israel actually providing that stability? Many would argue the current escalation is proving the opposite that the 'hard security choices' are actually accelerating the very collapse everyone was trying to avoid. Whilst the US had effective global hegemonic power the corrupt dynasties of the Gulf States made the easy choice of fealty to the US to protect their own narrow interests. Recent Saudi overtures to China and UAE to Russia show there is a direction of travel to having alternaives. Maybe at some level the US wants to thwart that with a show of power.

If the US had stayed out of WW1 there would probably not have been WW2 , Bolshevism and all the ills that flowed from them. Their unique wealth and exceptionalism and a desire to project it on the world are one of the major causes of misery in this century and the last. They have 5% of the world's popualtion and consume 25% of the resources - they are a cancer in the global ecosystem oh and they are the only country on earth to drop 2 atomic bombs on major cities.

Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is gonna win!

Why do you think America's participation in WWI contributed to WWII? The U.S. was not responsible for the establishment of Communism, the creation of the Nazi war machine and Japanese imperialism.