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 6 hours 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 6 hours 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?

	▲	bamboozled an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Apparently your rational viewpoint isn’t mainstream , which is wild. The Iranian regime is literally sending terrorists in Russia equipment to murder innocent people on the daily, but that’s fine for most people…