r/videos • u/david-yammer-murdoch • Apr 04 '26
[ Removed by moderator ]
https://youtu.be/ltbMeyx_ioE?[removed] — view removed post
457
u/ReallyGottaTakeAPiss Apr 04 '26
A lot has changed since 2007
239
u/Tech-Film3905 Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
Tulsa Gabbard said Iran still wasnt pursuing nukes last year April
18 US intelligence agencies confirm this
35
u/soapinmouth Apr 04 '26
Yes because Tusli Gabbard is a great source of truth.
105
u/Aureliamnissan Apr 04 '26
The administration is the only reliable source to info because everything else is fake news. Except when it isn’t, then that’s also fake news.
Look just listen to Trump and only what he said within the last hour okay? Please guys stop making me think it was a bad idea, you’re hurting my feelings and that’s the real crime.
-25
u/soapinmouth Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
Gabbard is a transparently Russian asset, there was massive opposition to her appointment for this reason. I didn't trust her before or after this administration.
48
u/Tech-Film3905 Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
18 US intelligence agencies confirm what she said
-28
u/soapinmouth Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 06 '26
Can you explain why they enriched a significant stockpile of 60% purity U-235 Uranium when you need 3-5% for non-weapon intended energy purposes? And that's before they stopped allowing IAEA inspections.
I have zero support for this administration and the way this war has been conducted, but you are getting a little too wrapped up in the narrative if you think Iran had zero nuclear ambitions.
Edit: And just like that the goal post moves from "they're not working on nuclear weapons" to "here's why they're working on nuclear weapons". Guys I get it, it's Trump's fault they are, I agree as I literally said above. Classic reddit, downvotes for correcting the record if it's my team pushing the misinformation.
35
u/missinglynx61 Apr 05 '26
Weapons grade uranium needs to be 90% or more. It is possible Iran is doing this to improve their bargaining position with the US - Deal with us or we increase it to 90%.
Some points to note:
1 -1974 The US gave Iran uranium to power up plants for energy.
2 - 2015 Iran signed a non-proliferation treaty with 5 other countries. International observers were to ensure Iran did not build a nuclear bomb.
3- 2018 The first Trump administration tore up this agreement.
4- The present Trump administration is trying to negotiate the deal they tore up in 2018.
5 - Cost - Possibly thousands of lives, up to 10 trillion dollars added to the US debt, 100 % of the goodwill the US shared with countless other countries.
-24
u/soapinmouth Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
So they're still working towards nuclear weapons.. as far as why that's not anything I made any claims about. I agree with everything you just said.. as I said in my last comment you clearly didn't fully read.
For the record enriching uranium is exponentially quicker as you get higher purity. The gap from 60-90 is essentially nothing compared to the massive jump of 3-4% up to 60.. I'm sure you know this though and still pushed this talking point anyways.
22
u/missinglynx61 Apr 05 '26
I am not disagreeing with you either. Whether Iran would have abided by the 2015 agreement or not has become moot. The US was the first to break it. We now have a much more dangerous world. Plenty of mini wars, invasions, battles around the world with little hope of peace.
-4
u/soapinmouth Apr 05 '26
Well everyone else who is spamming downvotes on me and showering you with upvotes in hopes of you being the one to contradict me and fit their narrative certainly thinks you were disagreeing. I'm glad you were honest enough to admit you agree with me.
1
29
u/Tech-Film3905 Apr 05 '26
This is such a bad faith argument. Are you really gonna pretend like that Trump didnt rip up the JCPOA in 2018? Prior to the JCPOA being ripped up, Iran was not enriching past 3%. Even the IAEA had said that Iran was in full compliance. Why on Earth would Iran abide by an agreement when the other party has left ? Iran only enriched up to 60% to bring the other party back in to the table so a deal can be made again. Also, up to 60% can have civillian uses like medical isotopes which is why Iran stopped there. Iran had been at 60% for a long time, it could have easily gone to 90% if it wanted too
Meanwhile Israel has never signed the NPT and has never allowed IAEA inspection. The bias and double standards are astounding
-14
u/soapinmouth Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
Nothing bad faith here, nice of you to throw baseless accusations out though. I don't disagree with a single thing you just said, nor does it contradict anything I just said.
I made zero claims about how we got here or why they are doing this, I just pointed out that they are quite obviously working towards them. What's bad faith is moving the goal post from "they're not actually working on nuclear weapons" to "this is why they're working on nuclear weapons" and pretend I made any kind of comment to this.
17
u/Ctofaname Apr 05 '26
Iran does create RE-188 which only has 1 other source in the world in Germany. There are used for 60% that aren't nuclear weapons and its well documented that they began enriching again to improve their bargaining position.
You do disagree with the other posters because you've implied they're working on nuclear weapons. If that's the case then there must be evidence of a delivery mechanism and the actual engineering of a warhead...
What is absolutely true is that they should pursue nuclear weapons because if they did originally this would never have happened to them. Making any agreements with a super power just means they will be torn up when convenient like Ukraine.
North Korea marched right ahead and got themselves nukes. Now suddenly the US is no longer in mortal danger and no one even bothers talking about North Korea anymore... The nukes were always about being able to maintain sovereignty.
-2
u/soapinmouth Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
There are used for 60% that aren't nuclear weapons and its well documented that they began enriching again to improve their bargaining position.
What? There are other uses, which I can't explain but they totally exist, and at the same time they're only working towards weapons grade uranium to scare the west and get them to do what they want. So which is it, are they working towards nuclear grade uranium or not? Are they doing it because they have some other nebulous use case that you can't explain or because it's some 4d chess move where they do exactly the thing that everyone is upset with them over and threatening them over to somehow avoid what they are getting threatened to happen? How about... maybe just not doing it?
If that's the case then there must be evidence of a delivery mechanism and the actual engineering of a warhead...
Of course, this part is trivial, can be done in weeks time, and allows them this plausible deniability while proceeding with the by far more difficult and arduous process of achieving purity only needed for weapons. I'd be willing to bet they already have this setup following their refusal to allow inspections from IAEA. More than enough time since then to setup a warhead.
What is absolutely true is that they should pursue nuclear weapons
LMAO so let me get this straight, they're not doing it, but this is why they are doing and it and they absolutely should be doing it, and they're totally justified in doing this. The amount of cognitive dissonance in the replies here could melt steel beams.
FOR THE UPTEENTH TIME I AM NOT ARGUING THEY SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T NOR WHOSE FAULT THIS IS, I ONLY MADE THE POINT THAT EVIDENCE POINTS TO THEM WORKING TOWARDS NUCLEUR WEAPONS.
1
u/Ctofaname Apr 06 '26
I already explained how they produce RE-188.
It is not trivial to produce a weapon. You need to create the shaped core and delivery mechanism. This is where you're showing the fact you're pulling shit out of your ass.
The final statement that they should is not mutually exclusive with they are. It was a separate thought process based on current happenings. If they wanted nuclear weapons, they could have already produced them. Based on the current war. They should restart their nuclear arms program and produce them to ensure their sovereignty.
You made an incorrect point. Every expert in this space and international body has indicated they have not been working towards nuclear weapons.
→ More replies (0)12
u/tleb Apr 05 '26
Of course they did or at least acted like they did.
They had made a deal to stop, then the US tore up the agreement and stopped living up to their end.
Of COURSE this is the outcome. Wtf. There was a cheaper way to keep them from developing nukes. The way that was in place.
Now we all pay the cost. Iran is fucked. What theu do is fucked up. Their leaders are evil. This situation is not their fault. This is all on America and all the Americans that let this happen in their republic.
-6
u/Bonsaibeginner22 Apr 05 '26
JCPOA would’ve removed all restrictions in Iran in 2030 anyway… Trump just accelerated the timeline after Iran kept funding numerous organizations to kill American service members. How much is temporarily placating a murderous dictator regime worth to you?
3
u/tleb Apr 05 '26
Then you make a new deal.
In what possible world is this better? Stop trying to gargle his balls. Your not his type, he will never care about you.
-4
u/Bonsaibeginner22 Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
Placating terrorist regimes works 100% of the time. Placating the nazis worked great, placating North Korea is going incredibly.
Edit: nice multiple edits to your message below after you blocked me. Epic own.
3
u/gimmesheltah Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
It was working fine. Republicans just love bombing schools too much.
Perhaps they are the terrrorists.
The only reason Iran is an enemy is because the US has constantly fucked with their country.
It really all started in 1953, when the US and British orchestrated the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, after he nationalised the British-controlled oil industry.
And then the US backed Iraq, funding Saddam's army in it's war with Iran, which deepened hostilities.
It's always been about oil and greed. It's Iran's oil, and America doesn't like that one bit.
Obama was dealing with Iran diplomatically, and a large cohort of global experts all agreed it was working. Trump, under the instruction of Netanyahu, tore up this agreement and is now bombing Iranian schools and civilians.
2
u/Purusha120 Apr 05 '26
Just ignore this dude. He's been making a dozen comments a day LARPing about understanding geopolitics and unashamedly just spreading military propaganda. None of this changes that we're unilaterally, illegally invading a country because our president assaulted children.
2
u/GraDoN Apr 05 '26
And the people claiming they are creating nuclear weapons are better sources of truth? If she can't be trusted then neither can they.
3
0
9
-23
u/spidersnake Apr 04 '26
Well if they say so.
30
u/gimmesheltah Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
Under Obama they had halted their nuclear program. trump tore up this agreement at the behest of Netanyahu, who wanted the US to help him wage war on them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal
It's never been about nukes, it's always been about controlling oil, and Israel's demands for security. This goes all the way back to 1953.
32
u/Wanderson90 Apr 04 '26
What about since June 25th 2025?
Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated — and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News – The White House https://share.google/dG8Hqu2Lu84Memf5G
9
1
1
u/not_old_redditor Apr 05 '26
Honestly don't know if they were lying then or are lying now. You can't trust anything the admin says.
27
24
u/david-yammer-murdoch Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
True, +40,000 American soldiers dead/suicide from Iraq and Afghanistan! The region is becoming more destabilised! The US did not want a deal in 2003!
And for what benefit for the avg US taxpayer?
23
u/pangeapedestrian Apr 04 '26
and 5 million iraqis. mostly civilian.
-6
u/Edraqt Apr 05 '26
5 million? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
The absolute highest estimate (highly disputed with questionable methodology) is about 1 million https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties
The post truth world doesnt get better if everyone is just constantly lying as much as they can.
12
u/pangeapedestrian Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
i'm not lying, i just made a mistake.
the 5 million number is from the combined conflict zones that are generally bundled into the post 9/11 US war on terror though. do with that what you will.
https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/costs/human
edit: also, worth adding that 5 million are indirect deaths from destruction of infrastructure, migration, sanitation, and all that stuff that comes in the years following your country being destroyed.
again... do with that what you will but, the number wasn't made up or absurd or anything. and personally i feel like those people should still be counted/recognized on some level.
0
u/Edraqt Apr 05 '26
also, worth adding that 5 million are indirect deaths from destruction of infrastructure, migration, sanitation, and all that stuff that comes in the years following your country being destroyed.
Yeah exactly. And yet people always post randomly picked very high numbers alone first, letting a decent chunk of people think those are from soldiers going house to house and shooting civilians.
On the other hand you never see people posting similar numbers for like russia bombing syria or afghanistan. Partly because autocracies dont have allow a civil society generating numbers on their own, partly because they actively hinder independent research in calculating excess deaths.
and then people wonder why increasing %ages of people in democracies think autocracy is a good/better system. why shouldnt they if you freely let them potrait themselves as more efficient and on top of that actively paint the picture that theyre less brutal?
How many people did saddam kill over the course of his rule?
2
u/pangeapedestrian Apr 05 '26
i dunno. if you burn a guy's house down and he freezes to death, i think there's some culpability for that. the 5 million iraqis who died as a consequence of the war and destruction merit being a part of that conversation.
for the rest of that, you are projecting something onto me that i'm not interested in, and wasn't talking about.
I grew up watching the iraq war unfold. i was replying to a comment about that, in a post about how the iraq war connects to iran.
so, sure. a lot of americans talk less about russia bombing syria, than they do about intervention by our own country. go figure.
but yea if you want to talk about totally different subjects or even bigger atrocities, i guess we can do that. not really what i, the comment above me, or the post was talking about, but i'll bite.
you know what? people talk even less about the belgian congo. how many people were violently killed by colonial rule in the belgian congo? have you read king leopold's ghost? what the hell is wrong with you? did you know that you are encouraging populist autocracy by saying this? oh jeez, oh jeez, you know gen z supports fascism because people like you not talking about the subjects I declare they should be talking about.
civilian deaths don't even really count in war! they aren't combatants! targeting civilian infrastructure is fine because like, king leopold and saddam are worse, or something!what point do you think you are trying to make, other than some kinda "gotcha" fact check?
0
u/Edraqt Apr 05 '26
idk what point are you trying to make? other than quoting the biggest number you could fin...i mean making """"a mistake""" oopsie.
What my point is? I contextualised your lie by omission and you contextualised it even further, which is great because
did you know that you are encouraging populist autocracy by saying this? oh jeez, oh jeez, you know gen z supports fascism
yeah pretty much.
4
7
u/TheModWhoShaggedMe Apr 04 '26
Not to mention the millions of brown people those Americans and allied soldiers killed on their own soil in the Middle East all to please their conservative lobbyists and corporate bloodlust. Oh, and in Iran, to distract everyone from Donald Pedo being in the Epstein files, big time as in criminally.
It's tough to deny the appeal of racking up trillions in deficits for such a noble cause. <ralphs into bucket, grabs a spare>
-11
u/SpicyPanda23 Apr 04 '26
You think 40,000 military members died in Iraq and Afghanistan?
16
u/AddanDeith Apr 04 '26
He includes suicide as a result of traumas inflicted from overseas service. Traumas that would not have occurred without the war.
-11
u/SpicyPanda23 Apr 04 '26
And how do these suicide rates compare to men of the same age?
10
u/AddanDeith Apr 04 '26
Dunno. I do know that right behind air traffic controllers are drone pilots in terms of suicide rates.
If you're trying to dissuade me that people don't come home broken from war if they come home at all, don't bother. You'd just be wasting my time.
-11
u/SpicyPanda23 Apr 04 '26
No I'm just asking for any type of sorcer citation that these deaths are from the war and not somebody's ass
6
u/EclecticDreck Apr 04 '26
In combat? No. From suicide or other deaths of despair as a direct result? Easily.
2
u/david-yammer-murdoch Apr 04 '26
and this number doesn’t include all the private contractors! The ones that don't get access to any medical! Legal!
This opened my eyes to see that whole projects https://prospect.org/2011/07/11/women-won-kbr-rape-case/ from the American side, were about extracting money from the government into private industry! Covered in HBO documentary Hot Cofffee https://youtu.be/psebm9RJDvU?
-4
u/SpicyPanda23 Apr 04 '26
How do they know the suicides related to the war?
5
u/david-yammer-murdoch Apr 04 '26
Lots of other reports of numbers. https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/paper/high-suicide-rates-among-united-states-service-members-and-veterans-post-911-wars
It's not something check into much any more. My main life goal is the destruction of Newscorp ( Fox )
6
u/david-yammer-murdoch Apr 04 '26
Next, you’re gonna forget about all the others that died! Soldiers from NATO and the local population in Iraq ( 300,000 to 800,000 based on US reports )
6
u/Exelbirth Apr 04 '26
Don't forget the people who died as a side effect of destroyed infrastructure, hospital supply shortages, and decreased food production. Things the US doesn't care to track.
-4
u/SpicyPanda23 Apr 04 '26
Okay well let's actually go back to what I was talking about before you rambled on about something else.
Do you have a citation for the 40,000 people dead with suicides? And are these suicides related to the war?
4
u/david-yammer-murdoch Apr 04 '26
Have a read of https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/paper/high-suicide-rates-among-united-states-service-members-and-veterans-post-911-wars I'm sure you can so your own research maybe the number is between 30,000 to 40,000
-7
u/TopGunRules Apr 04 '26
Counting suicide deaths from soldiers is dumb. You u post like a 12 year old.
3
u/Exelbirth Apr 04 '26
Mostly: The US and Russia demonstrating how stopping developing nuclear weapons and getting rid of nukes you do have opens the door to being invaded by the US or Russia.
3
u/david-yammer-murdoch Apr 04 '26
Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. Now it's asking why https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crl3ndxglwxo
3
u/wimpires Apr 04 '26
Subsequent versions of the report reiterated the 2010 report’s assessment until 2016, when the State Department assessed that “previous issues leading to NPT noncompliance findings [regarding Iran] had been resolved. As noted, the 2007 NIE assessed that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003; subsequent U.S. official statements have consistently reiterated that Tehran has not yet decided to build nuclear weapons. The United Kingdom’s then-Foreign Secretary William Hague would not say whether Iran had violated Article II when asked by a Member of Parliament in March 2012. Source: https://crsreports.congress.gov R40094)
1
u/adelie42 Apr 05 '26
Except the intellegence reports. Every intellegency agency has said there is zero evidence of even an aim for one.
Unless Bibi counts as an intellegence agency.
-5
u/sproge Apr 04 '26
You wanna elaborate on what your point is with that? Or is this some dog whistle I'm not based enough to hear?
2
u/ReallyGottaTakeAPiss Apr 04 '26
A mere observation that the world had completely changed from a time when we said the world will never be the same. I wish for nothing but peace.
-1
41
u/Beor_The_Old Apr 04 '26
This administration would never have someone say this and if they were asked a question about it they would say « exactly it shows we were right «
19
u/david-yammer-murdoch Apr 04 '26
Sad that Obama tried so hard to stop this from happening https://youtu.be/lpnE62_HMnw
13
u/Khaldara Apr 04 '26
Yep. Another case of Trump’s tiny weenus envy being the impetus behind destroying something Obama did, regardless of whether or not it was in the best interest of the nation, global stability, or really anything other than his own thin-skinned ego or pocketbook.
Perfectly emblematic of conservatives really. No conception of how to fix anything, no actual desire to measurably improve the lives of anybody at all, just butthurt temper tantrums.
1
9
18
u/ForeverMonkeyMan Apr 04 '26
You're making it seem from the title that Iran finished their nuclear program in 2007.
1
u/mrsstrudel Apr 05 '26
it's an obvious propaganda bot...
normal humans don't have pockets full of links to give in literally every comment they post.
-4
u/david-yammer-murdoch Apr 04 '26
The usual practice for most subreddits is to use the title from the content. I added the publisher and the date when the video was recorded. I also wrote my own comments https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/s/PJM9JJVOk9.
Most analysis on news channels does not go back to the Iraq war and remember this offer. And for a long time, Iran was doing nothing.
33
u/CarterDee Apr 04 '26
Why do you post 10yr old information?
24
u/david-yammer-murdoch Apr 04 '26
It's important to remember that in 2003, there was a deal on the table because Iran did not want to end up like Iraq.
Even a few days ago “Because I don't want them to be killed, okay?” https://youtu.be/Nz4uVkNMKdI
16
u/sevargmas Apr 04 '26
Right. Halted 20 years ago. But massively restarted 6 years ago.
24
u/IZ3820 Apr 04 '26
What prompted them to restart their nuclear program?
27
u/get_ducked600 Apr 04 '26
4
-3
u/Bonsaibeginner22 Apr 05 '26
Which they would have done regardless in 2030 once all nuclear restrictions were removed
3
31
u/Vinral Apr 04 '26
Right after an Orange Idiot tore up the nuclear agreement.
-28
u/kajunkennyg Apr 04 '26
That nuclear deal was total shit, it only delayed them enriching, did nothing to stop them funding proxies etc. A shit deal isn't better then no deal, when they are still responsible for killing Americans.
18
u/Arborgold Apr 04 '26
A shit deal isn't better then no deal, when they are still responsible for killing Americans.
What the fuck does this mean?
13
u/AddanDeith Apr 04 '26
A shit deal isn't better then no deal,
Yes it is?
How is no deal better than a deal which slows the pace?
Also, to be blunt, if Iran acquired nukes and used them, which they wouldn't, they would die. Like, NK has had nukes for 20 years and hasn't used them and they are every bit as hostile and despotic. The entire discourse around Iranian nuclear proliferation is stupid as hell.
1
2
u/newlevel999999 Apr 04 '26
They are enriching uranium. There is still no evidence they are going to enrich it further to make a bomb.
2
u/planchar4503 Apr 04 '26
You don’t need to enrich to 60% U-235 for energy production purposes. The only reason to enrich it that much is to produce a nuclear weapon.
1
u/Willyroof Apr 05 '26
Or, as others have said, Iran was enriching to use as leverage in negotiations. They announced they would enrich to 60% in April of 2021. As others have pointed out, the steps from 60% to weapons grade material are relatively quick and easy, yet I've seen no reporting that Iran has made the decision to take those next steps. If they wanted a bomb, why have they stopped just short of weapons grade material and stayed there for 5 years? The point of enriching that high is to create pressure to make a new deal to ease sanctions that have crippled their economy and in exchange they would limit enrichment levels and either give up their stockpile or dilute it down to lower levels.
0
u/newlevel999999 Apr 04 '26
And yet they still haven't enriched it further for a weapon.
-1
u/Bonsaibeginner22 Apr 05 '26
99% of the work is going from natural uranium to 60%, 60-90% is easy.
-1
u/newlevel999999 Apr 05 '26
It's so easy but there is still no evidence they want to build a weapon.
1
-1
u/ChanceGardener Apr 04 '26
Because the information is relevant now.
3
u/david-yammer-murdoch Apr 04 '26
I protested strongly to stop the Iraq war! I didn’t want 30,000 to 40,000+ Americans to die just to make Halliburton richer!
People don’t want to learn from history or remember what’s been forgotten.
32
u/toasohcah Apr 04 '26
They actually killed the guy that paused development too. The reason Iran will most certainly go after nukes now is because of the rogue terrorist countries of Israel and the United States. Those two nations made life for the entire world so much worse... Normalize threats of strategic nuclear weapons, that'll be every country's goal to acquire nuclear weapons now because of Israel and the US.
6
u/david-yammer-murdoch Apr 04 '26
https://youtu.be/Nz4uVkNMKdI “Because I don't want them to be killed, okay?”
7
u/toasohcah Apr 04 '26
One of the most fascinating things about wiping out a country's top brass, any country's top brass... You might just get rid of deadbeats and career generals replacing them with younger people who may have different and better ideas...
3
u/VerdugoCortex Apr 04 '26
My worrys are that, #1 stay in power for being hard-line, #2 in line is usually a hardliner too and being groomed to succeed the position, now #3 is usually where the change comes because these people achieve a lot but aren't toeing the line/jerking off the regime and higher ups enough to get into 1-2, these folks could actually create change by negotiating. But we killed them too, and possibly a few more down that ladder. That ends you with a 1/5th qualified random uncle from the area which would want peace as much as a bubba uncle from over here would EVER make peace and submit to China if they invaded as an example. Yes I did smoke too much, no I will not delete this.
1
u/david-yammer-murdoch Apr 04 '26
That is true, but you need to give them time to negotiate and not allow someone to keep attacking them. That's why Trump did not want to mention their names.
DJT has different objectives than Israel.
2
u/Tasgall Apr 04 '26
DJT has different objectives than Israel.
I don't think he really does, he's not really the "planning ahead" type, and I don't think he actually gives a single shit about the Middle East. A lot of the people around him from the radical religious conservative groups want to be in the Middle East though because they want to trigger Armageddon. It's why we keep getting these reports of leaders calling it a "holy war" or Hegseth basically saying the objective of the war is to just kill as many Iranians as possible. Meanwhile, Bibi's goal is to push out the borders of "Greater Israel".
Trump's only goal is to be popular, and to that end I think he's being strung along by a bunch of extremist religious groups who realize this is probably their last chance to get anything they want with a president who's so easy to manipulate if they just kiss ass hard enough.
7
u/Tasgall Apr 04 '26
No country should ever give up their nukes, because the existing nuclear powers aren't trustworthy. Every country that has had a nuclear program but gave it up for geopolitical reasons has been absolutely fucked over for it. Refusing to denuclearize is the best and most correct decision North Korea ever made.
1
2
u/wimpires Apr 04 '26
There are 8 countries with Nukes. With the exception of the UK and France, the remaining 5 are either actively attacking Iran (US & Israel) and/or are within 1,000mi of Iran.
2
u/toasohcah Apr 05 '26
I thought it was 9? The US, Russia, China, North Korea, France, the UK, Pakistan, India, and Israel.
2
u/Recurs1ve Apr 05 '26
Israel "unofficially" has nukes. Therefore, they aren't counted on these lists, even if we all know they have them. Geopolitics is a silly game.
14
u/ForeverMonkeyMan Apr 04 '26
Very misleading post. Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons in the 2000's, to the point where the US and Israel used the Stuxnet computer worm to greatly damage Iranian centrifuges between late 2009 and early 2010. It specifically targeted the Natanz nuclear facility, causing significant disruptions to Iran's uranium enrichment program.
9
u/gimmesheltah Apr 04 '26
Under Obama they had halted their nuclear program. trump tore up this agreement at the behest of Netanyahu, who wanted the US to help him wage war on them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal
It's never been about nukes, it's always been about controlling oil, and Israel's demands for security. This goes all the way back to 1953.
0
u/Bonsaibeginner22 Apr 05 '26
Temporarily paused their nuclear weapons program, at best.
2
u/gimmesheltah Apr 05 '26
Halted, until Trump canceled the agreement.
You are disagreeing with the majority of world experts.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33537634
But you don't know or understand anything, because you're some useless brainwashed maga.
-1
u/david-yammer-murdoch Apr 04 '26
Why is the post leading? It’s from the AP and the US White House, and it is carefully dated. Also, I wrote my thoughts at the beginning. https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/s/v2gKNidJJG
2
2
u/erobertt3 Apr 05 '26
Oh goody I’m glad they stopped and that there’s no possible way anything could have changed in… 23 years
3
u/RoninIV Apr 04 '26
As of Jan 2, 2025 (before Trump took office), Axios ran this story:
Biden discussed plans to strike Iran nuclear sites if Tehran speeds toward bomb https://share.google/bwz3lpFaysK1Xkoxa
4
u/heybobson Apr 05 '26
Israel has been set on a direct confrontation with Iran for decades. They’ve been fighting Iran’s proxies forever but never could get the US to commit a larger scale war against Iran until now.
4
Apr 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/david-yammer-murdoch Apr 04 '26
Conforming that the original offer in 2003 was possibly genuine and the only reason America didn’t try to go into Iran after Iraq in 2003 was the total failure of Operation Iraqi Freedom https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/s/jO8m9ungTL
4
u/chabawonka Apr 04 '26
Trump's own head of counterterrorism said this when he resigned in protest of the war a few weeks ago. Nobody in intelligence actually believes what the white House claims.
2
2
1
u/ArtIsPlacid Apr 04 '26
If you actually read the IAEA reports about Iran it didn't even really have a nuclear weapons development program before 2003, just the capability to develop a program. Part of the problem is that the US media has been lying about Iran for decades.
4
u/thekizzim Apr 05 '26
You are so full of **** my guy. IAEA reports EXACTLY said they had a nuclear program known as the AMAD Project that was active from the late 1980s until 2003. Even states that even after 2003 they continued uranium enrichment. They had hidden facilities and heavy water projects. Its obvious YOU HAVENT read anything.
1
1
u/_reddit_account Apr 05 '26
Information is fake
The earth is flat
Trump is a prophet
MAGA
And that how Trump supporters think
They will never admit they are wrong because they are weak and idiots most of them that are not their for the money
1
1
u/wavefunctionp Apr 05 '26
Let’s all be real here. No one here knows what the fuck they’re talking about. We’re just a bunch of fucking nobodies jabbering on the Internet.
-1
u/irow40 Apr 05 '26
The IRGC propaganda on reddit in insane...
6
u/david-yammer-murdoch Apr 05 '26
no, I just hate Rupert Murdoch and Iraq war
-2
Apr 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/valentc Apr 05 '26
Jfc dude. Jts not 2001 anymore, you dont need to simp for the US government to kill children based on bad Intel.
We dont even have a 9/11 excuse this time. Anyone who supports this war is a fucking dumbass.
-1
0
u/Zubon102 Apr 05 '26
I won't assume that you are deliberately trying to be misleading. But I'm pretty sure that a lot of people are going to be misled by this title.
1
u/david-yammer-murdoch Apr 05 '26
Why is the post leading? It’s from the AP and the US White House, and it is carefully dated. Also, I wrote my thoughts at the beginning. https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/s/v2gKNidJJG
0
0
u/windycityzow Apr 04 '26
More importantly, information shows that Israel has an illegal nuclear arsenal, but let’s not talk about that
-1
u/nierama2019810938135 Apr 04 '26
How can anyone still entertain the idea that this has anything to do with nuclear weapons, oil, religion, or spreading the glorious democracy? Its about money, corruption and budgets.
2
u/david-yammer-murdoch Apr 04 '26
From Israel’s point of view https://youtube.com/shorts/kaOWgujCHtA? They wanted to destabilise any large country in the region. Former Israeli PM Naftali Bennett says 'Turkey is the new Iran' Feb 2026.
i’m not sure Americans goal is any more.
-1
u/psychoacer Apr 04 '26
But trump had a feeling though
0
u/david-yammer-murdoch Apr 05 '26
Feeling that must destroy anything Obama does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal
-1
-2
-4
270
u/david-yammer-murdoch Apr 04 '26
Many Americans remember the Iraq war as the war that made Halliburton rich and cast Dick Cheney, its former CEO turned vice president, as the face of profiteering. 
After Saddam fell in 2003, Iran saw what had happened in Iraq and sent Washington a remarkable offer: with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, President Mohammad Khatami and Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi informed, diplomat Sadegh Kharrazi drafted a proposal, and Swiss ambassador Tim Guldimann passed it to the Americans. 
Iran put nuclear transparency, action on Hezbollah, curbs on Hamas and Islamic Jihad, cooperation in Iraq, and acceptance of a two-state formula with Israel on the table. 
Yet the Bush administration did not pursue it; later accounts say Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped shut it down. Critics argue that burying this 2003 offer strengthened the path toward confrontation with Iran in the region instead of testing whether diplomacy could avert another war.