• couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    IAEA made it quite clear that Iran was, in fact, producing highly enriched uranium. There’s no other use for that than to make nukes

    Ironically, IAEA reports also supported that Iraq was not doing so back in 2003.

    • CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Ironically, attacking someone “preemptively” because you think they’re about to develop nukes really just proves to those being attacked that they need nukes, because you won’t respect their sovereignty without MAD. I think it’s very clear to anyone with eyes and half a brain that the US+Israel wouldn’t have attacked Iran if it could result in Tel Aviv being glassed. Thus, the only logical conclusion from Irans side must be that they need to work even harder to develop nukes if they want the US+Israel to stop bombing them “preemptively” once a year or so.

      • couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        ‘Their sovereignty’ in this case being a religious elite of around 5% that holds the rest of the people as their cattle.

        Sure from their pov they ‘need’ those nukes, but unless you’re on their side it’s a very good thing if they don’t get them

    • Town@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 day ago

      They have the right to make nukes as much as anyone. Kinda surprised they didn’t just buy some from North Korea to prevent all this.

      • Mika@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        It would prevent nothing of this. You need to deliver the nuke to the destination and USA is on the other side of the globe.