If the left and the people who are disturbed over a Potus summoning ghosts of 1984 past keeps excusing Iran's state sponsored chaos as resistance,you're just enabling more of this mess.

Peace through strength means backing actions that stop the attacks, not escalating to WW3 fantasies.

John Fetterman supports the actions of the USA and brings up majority of House supporting condemning the regime as the world sponsor of terror.

16 minutes ago, riclag said:

If the left and the people who are disturbed over a Potus summoning ghosts of 1984 past keeps excusing Iran's state sponsored chaos as resistance,you're just enabling more of this mess.

Peace through strength means backing actions that stop the attacks, not escalating to WW3 fantasies.

John Fetterman supports the actions of the USA and brings up majority of House supporting condemning the regime as the world sponsor of terror.

He's almost as brain damaged as Trump.

The international lefts hero's ( the terror regime ) living up to their

terror reputation.

Thai Navy says cargo ship ATTACKED in Strait of Hormuz

7 hours ago, connda said:

If we nuke them, and destroy Al-Aqsa mosque, and build the Third Temple and sacrifice the red heifers - Jesus will come down wielding the Sword of Righteousness and Fury and will slay all but good Jews and Christians. Yeah? So America and Israel should get serious about "mowing the grass," eh?
Time to get rid of the Islamic and Palestinian terrorists for good do you think? Let Jesus Christ come down and take care of the rest like the Commies and Russians?

Do you actually believe this "stuff" or did you

just make it up?

7 hours ago, riclag said:

The international lefts hero's ( the terror regime ) living up to their

terror reputation.

Thai Navy says cargo ship ATTACKED in Strait of Hormuz

I'm so relieved to learn that I'm not a part of the international left.

The theocratic Iranian regime has never been and never will be a hero to me.

I'll be waiting for your missive on:

The Dangerous Appeasement of a Regime with Miniaturized Nukes and Hwasong 20s.

Incidentally, had Trump not tossed the JCPOA, Iran would not have "60% purity U235". Of course they remain a very long way from 93%, which is just the first step in being able to build a nuke.

There was historical precedent that negotiations with Iran worked. The 100% compliance by Iran re the terms of the JCPOA prove that.

The DPRK is waaaaay ahead, and is run not by a fanatical mullah, but an absolute psychopathic lunatic, who recently executed school kids for watching The Squid Game. He has 40,000 canons and missiles aimed at Seoul, and Trump just removed some Patriot and THAADs from South Korea to move them to the Middle East.

Bonus question: What do you think every developing country will deduce from Trump's war of choice against Iran, vs his lack of any action against the DPRK? Might they all deduce that "We gotta get us some of dem nukes!"

Under SLORC/SPDC in neighboring Myanmar, that regime began working with North Korea to develop its own nukes. Then came the short-lived democratic government under ASSK. Later came a coup, so what is that regime up to now? Those nukes would be quite close to Thailand. That regime has an even greater incentive now to get moving on nuking up now.

Add to that mix Turkmenistan, Turkestan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Cambodia, and a host of other nations who can read the news and see how to "protect" themselves. Heck, why not Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Slovenia.........

12 hours ago, connda said:

Yes yes yes. The most evil, satanist, women abusing, backward Empire of Evil and Terror! They should be removed from the face of the earth, yes?

Are we still talking about Iran or Epstein's US ? 😄

Let this sink in ! The international left just got handed a resounding reality check with the UN Security Council's Resolution, which condemns Iran's egregious attacks on Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Jordan in the strongest terms, proving that even amid this escalating war, the world (13 thru 0 vote, with only China and Russia abstaining) rejects appeasing a regime that's been a state sponsor of terrorism for 47 years.

"The 15-member Council adopted resolution 2817 (2026) (to be issued as S/RES/2817(2026)) by a vote of 13 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (China, Russian Federation).  It comes as the war, which began with Israeli and United States airstrikes against Iran on 28 February, nears its two-week mark and has spread to nearly a dozen nations across the already fragile Middle East region".

"By the terms of the resolution, the Council condemned “in the strongest terms” Iran’s attacks against Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan and reiterated its strong support for those countries’ sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence".

https://press.un.org/en/2026/sc16315.doc.htm

9 minutes ago, riclag said:

Let this sink in

Let this sink in. the UN is a useless talking shop how many resolutions against Israel and not a single action taken against them pffff !

6 minutes ago, johng said:

Let this sink in. the UN is a useless talking shop how many resolutions against Israel and not a single action taken against them pffff !

Another one who is frustrated that the regime responsible for attacking other countries in Mass,is being condemned by a body of peace makers.

Appeasing terror isn't so fashionable or not as popular it seems. The Peacemakers for global stability just gave a massive UN smackdown on Iran's regime.

"For years, Iranian-backed militias and terror groups attacked countries, and Iran carried out attacks directly, but the regime never seemed to face any censure".

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-889824

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Appeasing terror isn't so fashionable or not as popular it seems. The Peacemakers for global stability just gave a massive UN smackdown on Iran's regime.

"For years, Iranian-backed militias and terror groups attacked countries, and Iran carried out attacks directly, but the regime never seemed to face any censure".

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-889824

1 hour ago, riclag said:

For years, US terror agencies attacked countries, and the US carried out attacks directly, but the uni party regime never seemed to face any censure".

21 hours ago, johng said:

The two worst state sponsors of terrorism are US and Isreal both of which have nuclear weapons one of which has used them to kill thousands at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

These two terrorist states have now attacked Iran 2 times whilst pretending to negotiate

Iran is fully entitled to defend itself and strike back at the aggressors IMHO.

That might be one of the most historically illiterate takes in this entire thread.

You are comparing the use of nuclear weapons in 1945 during a declared world war with a modern nuclear proliferation crisis and pretending they are the same thing. They are not comparable.

Yes - the United States used nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. That was 80 years ago, during a global conflict that had already killed tens of millions of people and after Japan had attacked the United States and much of Asia.

If you want to debate that decision, fine. Historians have done so for decades.

But pretending that event somehow justifies a modern regime enriching uranium to 60% is intellectually lazy.

Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which limited enrichment to 3.67% for civilian nuclear power. It then proceeded to enrich uranium to around 60%, accumulate hundreds of kilograms of it, and expand centrifuge capacity while negotiations dragged on.

That level of enrichment has no civilian energy justification. None.

Weapons-grade uranium is roughly 90% enrichment, which means Iran has already completed the vast majority of the technical work required to reach it.

And Iran already possesses ballistic missile systems designed to deliver nuclear warheads.

So the issue is not some fantasy about “terrorist states attacking innocent Iran”.

The issue is a country moving dangerously close to nuclear-weapons capability in one of the most unstable regions on the planet.

If you cannot grasp that distinction and instead retreat to slogans about Hiroshima from 1945, you are not analysing geopolitics. You are repeating talking points while ignoring the problem sitting directly in front of you - a hallmark of intellectual mediocrity and wilful blindness to the realities of today’s geopolitical security landscape.

16 minutes ago, FlorC said:

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Appeasing terror isn't so fashionable or not as popular it seems. The Peacemakers for global stability just gave a massive UN smackdown on Iran's regime.

1 hour ago, riclag said:

For years, US terror agencies attacked countries, and the US carried out attacks directly, but the uni party regime never seemed to face any censure".

Its not nice & respectful to change my comments. I think its best we part our separate ways. Babye

"For years, Iranian-backed militias and terror groups attacked countries, and Iran carried out attacks directly, but the regime never seemed to face any censure".

16 minutes ago, FlorC said:

1 hour ago, riclag said:

For years, US terror agencies attacked countries, and the US carried out attacks directly, but the uni party regime never seemed to face any censure".

A few months, according to Trump, Irans nuclear programs were obliterated, 100%.

So what are you talking about?

21 hours ago, Wingate said:

Iran had stopped enriching under the JCPOA, despite the lies Netayanhu produced (from 2003 documents).

Trump tossed that treaty for no reason other than Obama had negotiated it.

Blame Trump for 60% enrichment.

That's still a far cry from 93% needed to produce nukes. The precision needed in high speed centrifuges to reach that enrichment level remains beyond Iran's ability. Not only does it require high quality centrifuges, it also requires an extremely precise and consistent power supply, lest the centrifuges wobble and destroy themselves. That is what Obama achieved with the Stuxnet virus, which varied the power so that even the slower centrifuges, that allowed Iran to reach 50% enrichment, wobbled and became useless.

The blame for even the current level of enrichment falls solely on Trump and his fragile ego.

Your comment manages to combine confidence with a remarkable misunderstanding of both the physics and the timeline - and getting both wrong.

First - the science. The hard work in uranium enrichment isn’t the jump from 60% to ~90% weapons-grade. The bulk of the separative work happens earlier - going from natural uranium to 3–5%, then to 20%, then to 60%. By the time material reaches 60%, most of the technical effort has already been done. That is precisely why proliferation experts get alarmed at 20% and especially 60% enrichment.

Second - the history. Iran had already enriched uranium to 20% before the 2015 JCPOA. That’s exactly why the deal forced enrichment down to 3.67%, capped stockpiles, and removed centrifuges under IAEA monitoring. The technology, infrastructure and expertise already existed.

Third - Stuxnet. Yes, the cyber attack damaged centrifuges around 2010 by destabilising their rotation. It disrupted the programme temporarily. It clearly didn’t eliminate it - Iran continued enriching for the next decade and eventually reached 60%.

And finally - blaming Trump for the physics is lazy analysis. You can argue the US leaving the JCPOA accelerated things. Fine. But pretending Iran suddenly acquired enrichment capability in 2018 is simply wrong.

The centrifuges, the expertise, and the enrichment ladder were already there.

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Your comment manages to combine confidence with a remarkable misunderstanding of both the physics and the timeline - and getting both wrong.

You don't say.

They admitted they had 60% enriched uranium, which is far from the 90% needed for nuclear bomb.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/iran-was-nowhere-close-to-a-nuclear-bomb-experts-say/

Iran was nowhere close to a nuclear bomb, experts say

“There was no evidence that Iran was close to a nuclear weapon,” says Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. His comment echoed those of other experts after the war’s start, as well as statements from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi at that time and in 2025 and last year’s “threat assessment” report by U.S. intelligence agencies.

According to an IAEA estimate, as of June 2025, Iran possessed 441 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium, where the percentage refers to the share of the isotope uranium 235 (U 235) found in the material. That would be enough for 10 nuclear weapons if the material could be enriched further to full 90 percent weapons-grade concentrations, according to the IAEA.

That step alone doesn’t equal a bomb, however. And Iran’s main enrichment capabilities were “completely and totally obliterated,” according to Trump himself in June, after the U.S. bombed three underground Iranian facilities. The administration’s special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff nonetheless claimed on March 3, after the start of the current war, that Iran had the capability to make 11 nuclear bombs. Trump administration officials reportedly failed to include nuclear technical experts in their negotiation teams with Iran prior to the war, adding to the uncertainty.

6 hours ago, Wingate said:

I'll be waiting for your missive on:

The Dangerous Appeasement of a Regime with Miniaturized Nukes and Hwasong 20s.

Incidentally, had Trump not tossed the JCPOA, Iran would not have "60% purity U235". Of course they remain a very long way from 93%, which is just the first step in being able to build a nuke.

There was historical precedent that negotiations with Iran worked. The 100% compliance by Iran re the terms of the JCPOA prove that.

The DPRK is waaaaay ahead, and is run not by a fanatical mullah, but an absolute psychopathic lunatic, who recently executed school kids for watching The Squid Game. He has 40,000 canons and missiles aimed at Seoul, and Trump just removed some Patriot and THAADs from South Korea to move them to the Middle East.

Bonus question: What do you think every developing country will deduce from Trump's war of choice against Iran, vs his lack of any action against the DPRK? Might they all deduce that "We gotta get us some of dem nukes!"

Under SLORC/SPDC in neighboring Myanmar, that regime began working with North Korea to develop its own nukes. Then came the short-lived democratic government under ASSK. Later came a coup, so what is that regime up to now? Those nukes would be quite close to Thailand. That regime has an even greater incentive now to get moving on nuking up now.

Add to that mix Turkmenistan, Turkestan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Cambodia, and a host of other nations who can read the news and see how to "protect" themselves. Heck, why not Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Slovenia.........

You’re throwing half a dozen unrelated issues into a single argument and hoping quantity substitutes for accuracy.

First - Iran. Yes, under the JCPOA enrichment was capped at 3.67% and Iran complied with that limit for a period.

But Iran had already demonstrated the ability to enrich to 20% before the deal, which is precisely why the agreement forced such strict rollbacks of centrifuges, stockpiles and enrichment levels under IAEA monitoring. The technology and infrastructure did not magically appear in 2019 - they already existed.

Second - the science you keep dismissing. The difficult work in enrichment happens earlier in the process. Moving uranium from civilian levels to 20% and then to 60% represents the majority of the separative work required. By the time material reaches 60%, the remaining step to ~90% weapons-grade is comparatively small. That is exactly why enrichment at 60% raises alarms among proliferation experts.

Third - North Korea. The DPRK already is a nuclear-armed state and has been since the mid-2000s. It has conducted multiple nuclear tests and developed long-range missiles. That is precisely why the strategic calculus is different. Preventing a state from becoming nuclear-armed is a very different problem from dealing with one that already is.

And finally - your domino theory list of half the developing world suddenly “nuking up”. Nuclear weapons programmes are not built because someone read the news. They require industrial infrastructure, enrichment capability, weapons design, delivery systems, and years of technical development. That is why only a handful of states have ever managed it.

So no - this is not about Trump, North Korea, Myanmar, Croatia or whatever country you decide to throw into the list next.

The issue is much simpler: a state enriching uranium to around 60% in a highly unstable region, which places it far closer to weapons-relevant capability than any civilian programme requires. Everything else you’ve added is just noise around that central fact.

2 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

You don't say.

They admitted they had 60% enriched uranium, which is far from the 90% needed for nuclear bomb.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/iran-was-nowhere-close-to-a-nuclear-bomb-experts-say/

Iran was nowhere close to a nuclear bomb, experts say

“There was no evidence that Iran was close to a nuclear weapon,” says Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. His comment echoed those of other experts after the war’s start, as well as statements from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi at that time and in 2025 and last year’s “threat assessment” report by U.S. intelligence agencies.

According to an IAEA estimate, as of June 2025, Iran possessed 441 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium, where the percentage refers to the share of the isotope uranium 235 (U 235) found in the material. That would be enough for 10 nuclear weapons if the material could be enriched further to full 90 percent weapons-grade concentrations, according to the IAEA.

That step alone doesn’t equal a bomb, however. And Iran’s main enrichment capabilities were “completely and totally obliterated,” according to Trump himself in June, after the U.S. bombed three underground Iranian facilities. The administration’s special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff nonetheless claimed on March 3, after the start of the current war, that Iran had the capability to make 11 nuclear bombs. Trump administration officials reportedly failed to include nuclear technical experts in their negotiation teams with Iran prior to the war, adding to the uncertainty.

Yes - 60% enrichment isn’t weapons-grade. Weapons-grade uranium is around 90%. No one disputes that.

What you’re ignoring is the physics of enrichment. Most of the work happens earlier in the process - moving uranium from natural levels to reactor grade, then to 20%, then to 60%. By the time a programme is producing 60% enriched uranium, most of the heavy lifting has already been done. That’s exactly why 20% and especially 60% are treated as major warning thresholds by proliferation experts.

And the article you cited actually proves the point you’re trying to dismiss.

As of June 2025, the IAEA estimated Iran had about 441 kg of uranium enriched to 60%. If that material were further enriched to 90%, it would be enough for roughly ten nuclear weapons.

That’s not “nowhere close”. That’s a large stockpile already well up the enrichment ladder.

Of course enrichment alone doesn’t equal a bomb. You still need weaponisation, warhead design and delivery systems. But Iran already has advanced ballistic missiles and has spent decades building and operating centrifuge cascades capable of producing highly enriched uranium.

And as you pointed out - the strikes damaged infrastructure at several sites. But even the IAEA said not all facilities were destroyed, and the stockpile of highly enriched uranium may still exist. The IAEA director has also warned that Iran could potentially resume enrichment within months because the industrial knowledge and capability remain.

That’s the point people keep missing.

Destroying centrifuges slows a programme. It doesn’t erase the technology, the expertise, or the enriched material already produced. Once a country has built that industrial base and produced hundreds of kilograms of highly enriched uranium, the problem doesn’t disappear because someone claims the facilities were “obliterated”.

So the concern isn’t that Iran had a finished bomb sitting on a shelf.

The concern is that a programme sitting at 60% enrichment with hundreds of kilograms of material is already most of the way there. And that’s exactly why the IAEA and proliferation analysts treat it as strategically significant.

Saying “they didn’t have a bomb yet” doesn’t change that reality.

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

What you’re ignoring is the physics of enrichment. Most of the work happens earlier in the process - moving uranium from natural levels to reactor grade, then to 20%, then to 60%. By the time a programme is producing 60% enriched uranium, most of the heavy lifting has already been done. That’s exactly why 20% and especially 60% are treated as major warning thresholds by proliferation experts.

What you are ignoring is reading the facts stated in the article. So tell us, are you a nuclear expert with more knowledge than those people mentioned in the article?

And Iran’s main enrichment capabilities were “completely and totally obliterated,” according to Trump himself in June, after the U.S. bombed three underground Iranian facilities.

“There was no evidence that Iran was close to a nuclear weapon,” says Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. His comment echoed those of other experts after the war’s start, as well as statements from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi at that time and in 2025 and last year’s “threat assessment” report by U.S. intelligence agencies.

11 hours ago, Jim Blue said:

Do you actually believe this "stuff" or did you

just make it up?

It's satire.....based on this sort of ultra-violent, fanatical, ethno-religious extemism:

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

1 Samuel 15:3.

"However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God."

20 Deuteronomy 16-18

Geddit?

1 minute ago, CallumWK said:

What you are ignoring is reading the facts stated in the article. So tell us, are you a nuclear expert with more knowledge than those people mentioned in the article?

And Iran’s main enrichment capabilities were “completely and totally obliterated,” according to Trump himself in June, after the U.S. bombed three underground Iranian facilities.

“There was no evidence that Iran was close to a nuclear weapon,” says Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. His comment echoed those of other experts after the war’s start, as well as statements from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi at that time and in 2025 and last year’s “threat assessment” report by U.S. intelligence agencies.

You’re quoting a line that says “there was no evidence Iran was close to a nuclear weapon” and treating that as if it proves the opposite - that Iran was nowhere near one.

Those are not the same thing.

“There is no evidence” does not mean something does not exist. It simply means it has not been confirmed. Intelligence assessments use that language very deliberately.

What is confirmed:

- The IAEA reported Iran had about 441 kg of uranium enriched to 60%.

- That material, if further enriched to ~90%, would be sufficient for roughly ten nuclear weapons.

- Iran had already demonstrated enrichment to 20% and then 60%, which represents the majority of the technical work in uranium enrichment.

So the issue was never “Iran has a finished bomb sitting on a shelf”.

The issue is a programme already well up the enrichment ladder with hundreds of kilograms of highly enriched material.

And the “obliterated facilities” claim doesn’t really settle anything either. Destroying centrifuges damages infrastructure, but it doesn’t erase the technology, the expertise, or the enriched material already produced. Even the IAEA has said enrichment could potentially resume within months because the industrial capability still exists.

So no, the question isn’t whether I’m a nuclear expert.

The question is whether you understand the difference between “no confirmed weapon” and “a programme already positioned dangerously close to one”....

Now is the time for Arab states to put up. Show some. Step to plate and force the regime to take a different approach to leadership besides a Autocratic regime hell bent on terror tactics & nukes.

"The resolution references one other resolution that excoriated Iran back in 1984. Back then, Iran was attacking shipping. This new resolution also discusses the freedom of navigation that is a right of countries. Iran has been seeking to close the Strait of Hormuz, and Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen may do the same with the Bab Al-Mandab Strait at the entrance to the Red Sea".

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-889824

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

You’re quoting a line that says “there was no evidence Iran was close to a nuclear weapon” and treating that as if it proves the opposite - that Iran was nowhere near one.

Maybe you should read the whole article, instead of continue to pretend to be the know-it-all, as there is plenty more in it that makes clear it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Iran to create a nuclear bomb in a short time span with the 60% uranium they already possessed.

21 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

And Iran already possesses ballistic missile systems designed to deliver nuclear warheads.

Both Isreal and the US already have nukes US has used them Israel has the Samson option.

Why do the hypocrites constantly insist that they can have nukes but no one else can

while throwing their weight around all over the world intimidating,kidnapping and assassinating other countries leaders ?

Iran does not have nukes yet..but would do well to peruse gaining the capability to ward off the 2 biggest bullies and terrorist nations on earth who are waging an illegal war of choice against them as we speak...those 2 countries are responsible for sowing the seeds or outright initiating most of the conflict afflicting the world at the moment...key takeaway is if you want to be left alone get some nukes or better still nukes and the full Epstein files to blackmail powerful people into doing crazy things for you.

US and Israel need to stop interfering in other countries affairs,sanctions,blockades color revolutions etc...after a few decades they may be let back into civil society if they beg sincerely enough !

5 minutes ago, Enoon said:

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

1 Samuel 15:3.

Yes and this war was started on Feb 28th 'Purim' this time they seem to be going all out to

destroy the Amalek all over again.

5 minutes ago, johng said:

40 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

And Iran already possesses ballistic missile systems designed to deliver nuclear warheads.

Both Isreal and the US already have nukes US has used them Israel has the Samson option.

Why do the hypocrites constantly insist that they can have nukes but no one else can

while throwing their weight around all over the world intimidating,kidnapping and assassinating other countries leaders ?

Iran does not have nukes yet..but would do well to peruse gaining the capability to ward off the 2 biggest bullies and terrorist nations on earth who are waging an illegal war of choice against them as we speak...those 2 countries are responsible for sowing the seeds or outright initiating most of the conflict afflicting the world at the moment...key takeaway is if you want to be left alone get some nukes or better still nukes and the full Epstein files to blackmail powerful people into doing crazy things for you.

US and Israel need to stop interfering in other countries affairs,sanctions,blockades color revolutions etc...after a few decades they my be let back into civil society if they beg sincerely enough !

That argument - “they have nukes so why can’t Iran” - is the geopolitical equivalent of school-yard logic.

Global nuclear policy was never about fairness. It’s about containment. The entire purpose of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is to stop additional states acquiring nuclear weapons, precisely because the more countries that have them, the more likely miscalculation, escalation, or regional conflict ends in catastrophe.

Your argument essentially boils down to: “If some countries have them, everyone should.”

That isn’t a security doctrine - it’s childish thinking dressed up as a political position.

The world already struggles to maintain stability between a small number of nuclear states. Start spreading those weapons across volatile regions and you don’t get balance - you get more triggers, more flashpoints, and far less margin for error.

So framing this as hypocrisy completely misses the point. It just exposes a profoundly naïve and blinkered view of how global security actually works. It reduces one of the most complex geopolitical issues on the planet to the intellectual level of playground fairness.

This isn’t about who “deserves” nuclear weapons. It’s about preventing more countries from getting them in the first place - because once proliferation starts, it doesn’t politely stop at one country.

7 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

t would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Iran to create a nuclear bomb in a short time span with the 60% uranium they already possessed.

BiBi has been saying they are close for 30 odd years Iran is the last domino in his greater Isreal project he finally got the war he wanted...despite already being wanted for war crimes and the leader of the most UN sanctioned country.

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

That argument - “they have nukes so why can’t Iran” - is the geopolitical equivalent of school-yard logic.

Yes well thanks yet again for the insults we have been here before and I'll not answer any more AI slop from you.

10 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You’re quoting a line that says “there was no evidence Iran was close to a nuclear weapon” and treating that as if it proves the opposite - that Iran was nowhere near one.

Maybe you should read the whole article, instead of continue to pretend to be the know-it-all, as there is plenty more in it that makes clear it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Iran to create a nuclear bomb in a short time span with the 60% uranium they already possessed.

You might want to read it again yourself. The article isn’t false, but it presents only part of the picture. It is correct that there was no confirmed evidence Iran had an active nuclear weapons programme or a finished nuclear bomb. That’s what the statements from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and several analysts refer to - inspectors had not confirmed weaponisation work.

But that is very different from saying it was impossible for Iran to move toward one.

The same reporting notes that by mid-2025 the IAEA estimated Iran possessed roughly 440 kg of uranium enriched to about 60%. That isn’t weapons-grade (which is roughly 90% enrichment), but if further enriched it could theoretically provide enough fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons.

In other words, the reality described isn’t “Iran had a bomb,” but neither is it “Iran was nowhere near one”... It’s that Iran had significant quantities of highly enriched uranium and the infrastructure to move further if it chose to.

So claiming the article proves it was “impossible” is simply overstating what it actually says. Intelligence assessments often say there is no confirmed evidence of something - that is not the same as saying it cannot happen.

And the “pretending to be a know-it-all” line is telling. If the facts are wrong, challenge the facts.

Even the expert you’re quoting makes that point. Alex Wellerstein said it was “not impossible to imagine” Iran had manoeuvred itself into a breakout position, while also noting that proving such a claim requires stronger evidence. The difficulty is that obtaining that evidence has been limited because Iran has repeatedly restricted or reduced IAEA inspection access and monitoring at key sites. When inspection access is constrained, the absence of proof is not the same as proof that something isn’t happening.