| ▲ | Ciantic 7 hours ago |
| The only way out of this in the long term is via negotiations. The US and Israel were lucky that Iran built their Fordow plant only 50 meters underground. What will the US do when Iran rebuilds it far deeper? They have a coal mine going 1200 meters deep. Iran is technologically far more capable than North Korea, which ultimately succeeded in building the bomb. The US knows this and wouldn't have started this war if Israel hadn't done it first. The first Iran deal in 2015 was not perfect, but it would have provided some guarantees for 15 years. If Iran is determined, how many years has this bombing bought? If I had to guess, Israel is back calling doom ~3 years when the US is having new elections. Israel doesn't want the removal of the Iran sanctions, why would they? This means whatever deal the US makes with Iran, it's not going to be good enough for Israel. |
|
| ▲ | hereme888 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| That would be so far into the future, the Ayatollah will be far gone by then. |
|
| ▲ | Stevvo 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There is another way out that may be more likely than negotiations; Iran will now obtain a nuclear weapon.
Iran has had the capability to build one for as long as Netanyahu has been singing about it(20+ years). Now they have the motivation also. |
| |
| ▲ | bamboozled 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | If they had the capability , why was this a bad move and how does taking out their bomb making facilities more likely they can now just produce a bomb ? | | |
| ▲ | HEmanZ 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The main reason to want a bomb is to stop people from interfering with/attacking you. It has now become even more obvious to them that the most powerful country on earth is willing to attack them in order to control them and their region. Their calculus just went from “probably screwed if we don’t have nukes” to “definitely screwed if we don’t have nukes”. They’ll find a way now, they can always dig deeper. | | |
| ▲ | jraby3 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They have repeatedly threatened Israel and the US. Nothing good (for western democracies) comes from Iran getting a bomb. | |
| ▲ | luckylion 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "They only want the bomb to stop others from stopping them getting the bomb." > Their calculus just went from “probably screwed if we don’t have nukes” to “definitely screwed if we don’t have nukes”. Or, option 3: totally fine if we don't try to get nukes. | | |
| ▲ | HEmanZ 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It might be splitting hair, but I do agree that if a new regime gained power that was tightly aligned with some world super power, and got some kind of serious protectorate status, then they could be totally fine without nukes. The current regime is not safe without them. You can’t honestly believe they are unless you are totally ignorant of the history and state of the region. So the current regime will keep trying until they succeed or are replaced. | | |
| ▲ | ngruhn 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Egypt and Jorden are totally fine without nukes. The only thing they had to do is stop attacking Israel, stop funding terrorist organizations that do and stop threatening Israel with annihilation. Iran is the aggressor here. If they would just chill, they would have nothing to fear. | | |
| ▲ | HEmanZ a few seconds ago | parent [-] | | Both Egypt and Jordan are US protectorates with no regional superpowers threatening their ruling regimes. Jordan couldn’t if they dreamed of it, Egypt might have but the US shows no interest in toppling its regime and mediation between them and Israel has been going about as well as possible given their histories. You’re right, they could chill and be fine. If they trusted the US, or Russia, or China enough to protect them, or trusted Israel to leave their regime alone for the next 100 years. Do you think it’s reasonable for them (the current theocracy) to have this trust in their current position? I find it much more rational that they do not. |
| |
| ▲ | js4ever an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | lets hope they get replaced and we can have "democratic republic of perse" that would be so much better than what iran is currently | | |
| ▲ | HEmanZ 38 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It’s one of the reasons I’m torn on what the US should do here. I think this intervention is the most likely way a regime change occurs, but the least likely way to stabilize the region. So some small chance of a great outcome, much larger chance of a bad outcome. I think allowing nuclear weapons in Iran is a very small chance of a very bad outcome, and an almost guaranteed chance of a middling outcome. How do you balance these? What are the actual risks? I’d love to read more people’s analysis on it. | | |
| ▲ | js4ever 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Nuclear weapons in the hands of crazy islamist terrorists and sponsoring all other terrorists around the world (Hutis, Hezbollah, Hamas, ...), with crystal clear public plans to destroy israel, what could go wrong? I don't see how it could be worst, any other gov in Iran would be better for the world and for the peoples in Iran. Are you genuinly thinking that giving nuclear weapons to terrorists is a good idea? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | kyrra 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The first Iran deal in 2015 was not perfect, but it would have provided some guarantees for 15 years. And then what? They have nuclear weapons? Which is what Israel and the US doesn't want. Also, Iran didn't even let inspector into all of the enrichment sites they had, so they were breaking the original deal with Obama from the start. |
| |
| ▲ | probably_wrong 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Also, Iran didn't even let inspector into all of the enrichment sites they had, so they were breaking the original deal with Obama from the start. I should point out that this view is not unanimous. Using Politifact as a source [1]: "We reported in 2017 that Iran had largely complied with the deal, and many experts praised the pact for keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of Tehran. Over the 28 months the deal was in effect, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it found Iran committed no violations, aside from some minor infractions that were addressed." And from their linked article[2]: "A complex, technical process like this one is inevitably going to face small hiccups," said Ariane M. Tabatabai, visiting assistant professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. "Just as Iran believes there have been hiccups on the U.S. side." My understanding is that Iran was largely complying with the treaty by the time Trump decided to scrap it. [1] https://api.politifact.com/article/2025/jun/18/Iran-nuclear-... [2] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jun/14/karen-hand... | |
| ▲ | daveguy 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 15 years is a lot better than immediately resuming enrichment. Which happened as soon as Trump scrapped the previous agreement. It still took them 7+ years to get to where they are now. So, it would have been 22 years, not 15. Trump is a short-sighted fool. |
|
|
| ▲ | thimabi 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The US and Israel were lucky that Iran built their Fordow plant only 50 meters underground. What will the US do when Iran rebuilds it far deeper? Most likely Israel would attack even before such a facility became operational. It’s not like they haven’t done preemptive strikes before. |
|
| ▲ | tim333 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Or regime change. Not saying it's a good idea but I'd give it at least 50/50 of happening. |
|
| ▲ | cced 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| How do you negotiate with a country(ies?) that blows up your chief negotiators? |
