Do you not perceive a threat from a country with nuclear capability that chants "Death to America, Death to Israel" to be a threat to America? Venezuela I don't know about, but Iran was (is) most certainly a threat to America.

▲

curt15 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Iran with nukes can't hold a candle to the threat posed by the USSR. Your logic would have turned the Cold War into a shooting war.

▲

Peritract 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If it's moral to strike at a country with nuclear capability that talks constantly about your country's destruction, then it's no less acceptable for Iran to strike the US than the other way around.

You can't condemn one and condone the other on that basis.

	▲	dotancohen 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You are 100% correct. That is exactly my point. Iran has both reason and were developing capability to destroy a significant part of American national security. America absolutely must prevent that at any cost. You could argue about how the rhetoric between the states got so bad that they each threatened each other's destruction. But the fact is that they got there.

▲

queenkjuul a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Iran has no nuclear weapons and no weapons capable of striking the US

▲

dotancohen a day ago | parent [-]

Iran has a strong nuclear weapon development program. Negotiations could not halt it - they stall negotiations and continue development. So if they continue development during negotiations, why shouldn't the US continue her own parallel military route?

As for delivery, Iran does have missiles capable of launching a nuclear weapon at American assets in the Middle East, or American allies. Or even to just float it over on a ship.

▲

queenkjuul 21 hours ago | parent [-]

Negotiations did halt it. Then Trump went back on the deal.

There's reports Iran agreed to limit themselves to only medical grade centrifuges as recently as last week.

And no, Iran does not have weapons capability to reach the US, period.

They fundamentally did not pose an imminent threat to the United States. A threat to American strategic goals is not an imminent threat to the American people.

▲

dotancohen 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Negotiations halted Iran's nuclear program for, as per words of the treaty, "10 to 15 years". That was in 2016. If that treaty were not torn up, then Iran would be allowed to unveil their nuclear weapon in January 16, 2026. Yes, two months ago.

	▲	fwip 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		No, they would be allowed to resume working on a nuclear weapon program, if a further treaty was not reached.
	▲	queenkjuul 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Well now you're not making any sense. Is your claim that the deal was not preventing Iran from developing a nuke? Then why does the existence of the agreement matter either way? Are you saying Iran would magically produce a nuke the very day the deal expired? Then why don't they have one today? How does ending the agreement make it harder for Iran to get a nuke? How does "tearing it up" prevent anything that the agreement itself wasn't preventing?

▲

curt15 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

North Korea engages in no less saber-rattling. Why is the US not attacking Kim Jong Un?

	▲	dotancohen 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not familiar enough with Korean culture to know if suicide-for-ideology is culturally acceptable and expected. In Islamic ideology that is the highest honour.