Iran can of course build a nuke in a relatively short timespan if they want to, but for a range of reason they have made the decision not to. Perhaps they should have built a nuke, if they had one Israel and the US wouldn't have bombed them.

▲

JumpCrisscross 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> if they had one Israel and the US wouldn't have bombed them

If Iran had one nuke we’d bomb them relentlessly.

Their delivery mechanisms and ground infrastructure aren’t advanced enough to guarantee launch, and a single Fisher Price nuke is not game over. Iran with the capacity to build a bomb can be dealt with now or later. Iran with an actual nuke has to be dealt with now, or else be accepted as a regional nuclear power. (Which would mean a Saudi nuke. Which would mean a Qatari nuke, and probably also Emirati nuke.)

▲

rjzzleep 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's really amazing how a bunch of politicians in the US including can just repeat a claim and Trump can just prime a statement like "the JCPOA was a terrible deal" and people that should be smart will gradually start believing it without ever reading a single word of the JCPOA document.

No they can't. Canada can. Japan can, SK can. But Iran poured concrete into the rods of its only, then completed heavy water reactor that would have been able to produce the plutonium needed right after they signed the JCPOA before actually receiving any of the concessions they were supposed to get which would have actually given them leverage.This was also detailed in Wendy Sherman's book.

The entire airspace around Iran is controlled by the US's allies and Iran's enemies. Iran would never be able to fly a bomb anywhere close to Israel. They would need a ballistic missile delivery mechanism which's research was confirmed by the US to have been stopped in 2003.

	▲	myth_drannon 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		So what was Iran shooting at Israel then, paper rockets? It was huge ballistic missile.
	▲	ndiddy 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Honestly I don't see why any country would ever enter a long-term agreement with the US. The Constitution says that the president negotiates international agreements but that Congress must ratify them. Due to procedural rules basically making it impossible for Congress to pass legislature, any agreements that don't go through Congress are simply executive agreements that can be terminated with a stroke of a pen by a future president. This means that any remotely controversial agreements can't be expected to last beyond the current president's term.