> If that also means Iran collapses into a Libyan style civil war, so be it.

Pretty cavalier way to talk about a monumental humanitarian catastrophe.

Say what you will about the Libyan leadership, the collapse of the country was categorically A Bad Thing. Wishing that on the people of Iran is monstrous.

▲

alephnerd 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Say what you will about the Libyan leadership, the collapse of the country was categorically A Bad Thing. Wishing that on the people of Iran is monstrous

Morally, absolutely.

But morals don't run the world - interests do. And it is in our interest to not spark a nuclear race in the Middle East, the same way it was in our interest to firebomb every Japanese wooden city during WW2 instead of putting boots on the ground as well as airstriking much of Urban Serbia during the Yugoslav War.

As such, Iranian leadership will have to give up their nuclear ambitions if they wish to offramp.

This is what a multipolar world looks like.

▲

mullingitover an hour ago | parent [-]

> But morals don't run the world - interests do.

> As such, Iranian leadership will have to give up their nuclear ambitions if they wish to offramp.

It's not remotely in Iran's interests to give up on its nuclear program. Probably the best thing that could happen for their security would be an above ground nuclear weapons test to get everyone off their back.

It's not like surrending their program is going to save them, just ask Gadaffi about how it worked out for him. Oh wait.

Also, it's not like they're the ones starting the nuclear race in the region: that one's on Israel.

▲

UltraSane 21 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

"It's not remotely in Iran's interests to give up on its nuclear program. "

No, it is not in the interests of the very corrupt and evil Islamic Theocracy running Iran to give up their nuclear program. It doesn't benefit the average Iranian all. In fact the program harms most Iranians by making Iran an international pariah.

▲

alephnerd 22 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> Probably the best thing that could happen for their security would be an above ground nuclear weapons test to get everyone off their back.

Then KSA makes a nuke. Then Turkiye. Then the UAE. Then Egypt...

> It's not like surrending their program is going to save them, just ask Gadaffi about how it worked out for him. Oh wait

Yep.

But it will reduce the risk of us using scorched earth tactics to deindustrialize and collapse Iran as a warning to other countries.

A managed transition to amenable leadership (clerical or secular) and complete US or EU control of Iran's nuclear program would be good enough for us.

> it's not like they're the ones starting the nuclear race in the region: that one's on Israel

Take up Israel's nuclear program with the French, not us Americans - it was De Gaulle who sent his nuclear engineers to build Israel's nuclear program in the 1950s-60s [0].

We could not denuclearize Israel on time in the 1970s, just like we can't denuclearize China, India, Pakistan, or North Korea.

This is also why Israel was treated as a pariah state by the US from the 1970s-90s [1][2][3]. The US-Israel relationship only took off in the 2000s under Clinton 2 and Bush.

[0] - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000271219.pdf

[1] - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86T01017R0001007...

[2] - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP91-00561R0001000...

[3] - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00965R0008072...

	▲	mullingitover 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Then KSA makes a nuke. imho that's the real endgame anyway, the US is just hired muscle to beat up KSA's regional rival, and eventually when the US is done collapsing and retreating to isolationism KSA will do a big show of their nuclear weapons. If KSA wants a nuke they'll get it, and the US politicians they've purchased will all applaud them for the accomplishment.