All this thread tells me is how little memory people have. Late into Obama's office, he brokered a deal that would have reduced Iran's ability to create wmds in exchange for lifting sanctions while giving the rest of the world the ability to monitor them to make sure they actually stop trying to make a wmd. Trump infamously cancelled this deal early into his first run and now people are acting like he's doing a good job by wanting to attack Iran- Trump created this problem in the first place!
this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
841 points (96.6% liked)
Political Humor
1314 readers
257 users here now
Welcome to Political Humor!
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other.
- No harassment.
- No sexism, racism or bigotry.
- All arguments should be made in good faith.
- No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
- All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
- No bots, spam or self-promotion.
- If you want to run a bot, ask first.
- Site wide rules apply.
- Have fun.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Trump created this problem in the first place!
I think it's good to be absolutely crystal clear on what the problem is. Iran is not building nuclear weapons. They say this themselves, and the entire American intelligence community, as well as the UN's IAEA agree that they haven't since 2003. The amount of evidence that Iran is building WMDs is exactly the same as it was for Iraq in the early 2000s (i.e., non-existent). So that's not the problem.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Warmongering and unconditional support is bipartisan.
Biden never did anything to fix it, they're invariably 'sabotaged by the other side and powerless', same as with every other issue.
Like when Trump unilaterally ended the missile treaties.
If anything Biden escalated tension with Iran with some aggresive actions.
And anyway Iran never was planning to get nukes.
They are an advanced country and have nuclear energy which is their right.
The scaremongering lies by the genocide state and their big bully friend do not change that.
If anything, I hope they change their mind and start working on a nuke since they invariably get provoked and attacked for no reason.
Can someone fill me in, is there any actually grounds for Israel to attack Iran and why is the United States involved, y'know other than the usual simping for Israel.
The claim is (as always), Iran is on the verge of having nuclear weapons.
The whole idea is that if Iran did get nuclear weapons, it would be too risky to attack them, and that they could use their immunity from being attacked to make the world a much worse place.
I don't know if we should believe the assessments of their capabilities. Israel has been saying they're days, weeks or months away from having a nuclear weapon for going on 30 years now. But, AFAIK, nobody has actually said that they currently do have WMD.
Claiming that BS for 30 years:
https://tankie.tube/w/sh7jHCDiBgK74cjdV9wxVb
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(12 replies)
I'd like to thank the mods for leaving conflicting comments up. I've seen too many echo chambers going up on lemmy. Appreciate you all. Also appreciate those I don't agree with for sharing their ideas, calling me out on mine and sometimes changing my mind, and taking the time for discourse. Those who argue in bad faith, have no open mind, and pretend to have empathy, fuck yourself.
No one has said they have a working WMD, but that they are very close to one and that they cannot be allowed to have one because it would cause the same kind of stalemate that we have with Russia.
It’s sound logic my guy. Why are people defending the woman hating, gay killing, non democratic regime again?
that they cannot be allowed to have one because it would cause the same kind of stalemate that we have with Russia.
Because the West is such a force of good in the Middle East that someone being able to stand up to them is a bad thing?
If that someone is a misogynist, homophobic, murderous regime of religious fanatics hellbent on making the world an even worse place, yes.
Progressive change from domestic conservatism can only happen from internal civil resistance, not bombing the fuck out the country to force a regime change
The US has plenty of domestic conservative policies, do you think the US should be bombed until they become progressive? No, obviously because that's completely insane and simply an after-the-fact justification for chauvinism.
load more comments
(3 replies)
America?
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(21 replies)
Because I don't want the woman hating, gay oppressing, non democratic regime with thousands of working WMDs that I live in to start another fucking war
I agree and fucking hate the regime. Can't wait for them to live free.
But, Jon Stewart got through to me the other day with video clips of Netanyahu claiming the nukes were almost built over and over for 15 years. I'm anti war and and don't want another Iraq under false pretense. I would love for the people to get their democracy back without casualty.
I believe it's the reason the West is in Israel. And that it's probably only under control bc of that. But questioning the legitimacy of there being any urgency.
Absolutely NOBODY involved in this escalation gives one single fuck AT ALL about liberating the Iranian people. None. Nobody. Zilch. Zero. This is PURELY a capitalist venture to enrich assholes and fuel the power of radical fascists. There is ZERO benefit to ANYONE else. None. Zilch. Zero.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Whatever you think of the Iranian government, (they're not good, but also blame the US for helping put them there in the first place) there is only one country in history that has ever used nuclear weapons and they used it on civilian populations, twice. That same country has been invading one country or another for most of it's history, devastating civilians in the process all for the sake of greed. THAT is the country that is policing the world, deciding who's too "dangerous" to have what is apparently the only deterrent to it's routine aggression.
The only way to not recognize this for what it is is to have never stopped to think about the American exceptionalism propaganda you've been fed your entire life. We're not the good guys. Even if we want to see a better government in these countries, the US is more likely to impede that and install a different dictator than they are to usher in a proper democracy. See: Vietnam, Korea, most of Latin America, various post-soviet countries, various countries in the middle east, others that I'm probably not thinking of and.. oh right: IRAN!
load more comments
(1 replies)
Why are people defending the woman hating, gay killing, non democratic regime again?
Strawman me harder daddy
HOW LONG have everyone who just happens to be anti-Iran been saying that they ALMOST have a nuke?
How many nukes does Israel have and QUITE illegally?
Iran SHOULD have a nuke as a deterrent against the most violent terrorist nation in the ME.
Because the current intelligence says they're not close to one. Unless a report came out that I missed?
Don't bother. This site seems to be about 50% propaganda accounts and 50% teenagers who have no understanding of geopolitics and are convinced that anyone against Israel are the good guys. Absolutely no understanding as to why it's desirable to prevent a North Korea situation in the middle east.
Wrong. Iran arent good guys; Israel is a psychotically violent terrorist nation bent on annihilation of all neighboring countries. How many countries has Israel attacked? Have many have Iran attacked? Who attacked first? Why is trump INISISTENT upon wae with Iran even though his own spies confirmed there was no nuke program in Iran? Why did he destroy the treaty we had with them the first term?
Perhaps you should consider that YOU are the simp.
It's really hard to believe that so many people defend Hamas and Iran's government here. I'm convinced all of them are bots or just literal idiots.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(14 replies)
Iraq, after the Gulf War, was never found by the IAEA to be in possession of or active production of uranium in excess of 20% target enrichment. That's a level consistent with civilian-only use.
The IAEA has repeatedly confirmed Iran has enriched uranium to 60% in increasingly large quantities. Iran has also admitted it, and provides nebulous excuses when pressed about it. There is zero modern civilian purpose for that level of enrichment, and it doesn't take much time to refine from 60% to 85% for high yield weapons grade uranium. Days to months, not years.
Assessments have concluded that Iran does not yet have a functional nuclear weapon, but once they do possess one, now your hands are tied. The only winning move is a pre-emptive strike to prevent nuclear proliferation. Talks are meaningless and not in good faith - Iran sees Israel as a mortal enemy that already has nuclear weapons. Like with North Korea, Iran's nuclear proliferation was used as an indefinite negotiating tool and never intended to be off the table. Iran also does not have a plausible defense purpose for nuclear weapons. If they think the US or Israel would wage war to topple the Iranian state, wouldn't those countries have done it already over the past 50 years? Iran's leadership has, over and over, declared their intent to destroy Israel. They provide weapons and support for proxy groups fighting Israel. Who's to say they wouldn't deliver a nuclear device to a proxy group that sneaks it into Tel Aviv and detonates it, then denies responsibility?
Should have dunked on North Korea before they completed their bomb too, but I guess unlike Iran, their regional partner China wasn't already preoccupied losing another war.
Days to months, not years.
If Iran is days to months away from a nuclear bomb, then for all intents and purposes they already have a nuclear bomb. The fact they don't have a nuclear bomb already despite having 60% enriched uranium for years can only mean that they simply don't want a nuclear bomb.
The only winning move is a pre-emptive strike to prevent nuclear proliferation.
The only winning move is diplomacy to prevent nuclear proliferation, aka JOCPA. I wonder how that went. Also I find claims that Iran is so close to a nuclear bomb very doubtful given that they've been around for literal decades.
load more comments
(9 replies)
view more: next ›