sycasey said:
BearGoggles said:
sycasey said:
BearGoggles said:
sycasey said:
Oh, so Trump was aware of this terrible idea to attack Iran. Great.
I'll ask again - do you contend that the world is better off with a nuclear armed Iran? That is the alternative to this war.
I reject your premise.
Because you live in fantasy land. The IAEA confirmed Iran is working on a bomb and is frightening close. That is beyond doubt.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/12/world/middleeast/un-iaea-iran-nuclear-program.html
The world has been negotiating with Iran for decades. They have lied about their intentions (claiming they weren't pursuing a bomb). They continued to develop nuclear technology when the JCPOA was in effect and recently, when purportedly negotiating with the USA, they accelerated their efforts. If the JCPOA had remained in effect, it would have expired next year at which point Iran would have a bomb and ballistic missile.
So for the third time, do you find it acceptable for Iran to have a nuclear bomb? It is a yes or no question. If not, what is your solution to preventing that other than military action?
I reject your premise that military strikes will actually prevent this. Unless you think that there should be permanent open conflict between Israel and Iran.
It is quite cowardly and disingenuous of you to not engage on the fundamental question while mischaracterizing the "premise" of my question. There is no hidden premise. For the fourth time, do you find it acceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon?
If your answer is yes, then that is the end of our discussion. You're certainly entitled to that opinion, which most people don't share.
If you answer no, then you need to explain what measures you feel will dissuade/prevent Iran from getting the bomb. Criticizing Israel and US policy without offering any alternative is vapid and certainly calls into question your motivations.
And because, unlike you, I engage in good faith, I'll simply say that nothing in my approach presumes or guarantees there should be "permanent open conflict" between Iran and Israel.
That being said, there has been an undeclared war for 40 years, which has victimized the people of Syria, Lebanon and Gaza/West Bank, not to mention Israelis. So I do think that in many respects an open war is better - precisely because it is unlikely to be permanent. For too long, Iran has been fighting a low cost war by sacrificing the lives of the Syrians, Lebanese, and Palestinians. Now that the the Mullah regime is incurring direct costs - including the possible loss of power - they will view things differently.
