War with Iran Part II

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reports say trump is planning limited strikes on Iran to “encourage a deal”.
If this thinking makes sense, let me know.

Post your source. Every single time you make a claim. Otherwise, it's just blather to be ignored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone agree that Iran get nuclear weapons

It’s a farce. They don’t get nuclear weapons. They have enriched uranium and was just about to agree to not enrich it further in Feb 27.

Why would a country that has so much oil ever need uranium unless it's to build a nuclear weapon how can anybody say oh yeah sure you can enrich for uranium in an oil-rich country it's ridiculous no one should be fooled and in fact this is proof that they never stopped their nuclear program and should be sanctioned and removed from the planet

Why would a country that supposedly has such a great economic and diplomatic relationship with China need nukes when they could be working with China on developing renewables?
Iran gets 2800+ hours of sunlight per year across most of its territories. The central plateau, Yazd, Kerman, Isfahan has world class solar irradiance values. Some of the best on the planet. And the Binalud and Manjil corridors have some of the strongest onshore wind resources in the entire Middle East. Iran could be a renewable energy powerhouse.

China has partnered with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other countries to build megascale renewable energy projects.

The catch is that China won't invest, because of sanctions. And the sanctions are there because nobody believes Iran is pursuing nuclear for energy alone. Iran needs to drop that pursuit. Bottom line. Their lives will be so much better if they do.

You're describing an ideal world where Israel isn't acting like a terrorist state. Iran wants nuclear weapons to defend against Israel, and given what occurred this year, I'd say they've been proven right. Which is extremely sad, because your ideal solution cannot happen.

You're describing a world where Iran has no agency, no choices, no alternatives, and where its only possible path is to pursue nuclear weapons “to defend itself from Israel.” But that framing ignores the choices Iran has made for decades.

If nuclear pursuit were simply a reaction to Israeli aggression, you’d expect Israel’s immediate neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, others who actually fought wars with Israel to be racing for nukes. They aren’t. They also aren’t chanting “Death to Israel” at every state function. Yet they were the ones who experienced direct conflict with Israel in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

Iran, by contrast, had no wars with Israel, no Israeli attacks on its territory, and in fact maintained cooperative ties with Israel before 1979. The first Israeli covert actions against Iran didn’t occur until decades later in the 2010s, long after Iran had already spent years funding terrorist groups that attacked Israel. And from the moment the Islamic Republic was founded, its leadership adopted “Death to Israel” as a core ideological slogan.

That wasn’t a reaction to Israeli military behavior. It was an ideological choice. It was core choice for their revolution's identity. The new regime framed Israel as illegitimate, as a Western colonial project, and as something that should not exist in the region. That ideological posture shaped everything that followed.

None of this excuses Israeli policies you find objectionable. I and many others find Israeli policies objectionable as well, I've posted numerous times here to criticize the occupation, the treatment of Palestinians, and the conduct of the IDF. Those criticisms stand on their own.

But it’s also not accurate to portray Iran as a passive victim with no alternatives but to “stand up to terrorist Israel.”

Iran made strategic decisions: supporting armed proxies, rejecting diplomatic normalization, and defining its very identity through opposition to Israel, while other regional states chose de‑escalation and coexistence. The current conflict dynamic didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it wasn’t inevitable.

If we’re going to call out harmful behavior, it has to be applied consistently. Israel has done things worth condemning. But Iran has also made choices that escalated tensions rather than reduced them. Both realities can be true at the same time.

An awful lot of blather to say, essentially, we gave them a chance to do exactly what we told them to do, but they chose self-determination instead.

As always, the choice of one is no choice.

You also cited the apparent decision of Egypt and Jordan not to pursue nuclear weapons despite prior conflicts with Israel as evidence that there does exist, in fact, a peaceful path to coexistence with Israel. Aside from the fact that the essence of your argument is delusional, deceptive, or both, wagging your finger at Iran for refusing to follow the lead of two subservient lap dogs into that hegemonic trap is kinda comical.

You’re calling it "self‑determination," but Iran’s choices weren’t forced on them by Israel or anyone else. They were ideological decisions made in 1979, long before any Israeli covert activity and long before Iran began funding armed groups across the region. And to call it "anti-hegemonic" is quite ironic given Iran has been aggressively trying to project power beyond its own border and establish its own hegemony in in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere across the region.

And dismissing Egypt and Jordan as "lap dogs" is just a cheap, lame way to avoid the obvious: those countries actually fought wars with Israel, lost territory, and still chose diplomacy over nuclear escalation. They had far more reason to pursue nukes than Iran ever did, and yet they didn’t. That’s not subservience. That’s strategy.

You don’t have to defend Israel to acknowledge that Iran made its own escalatory choices. Pretending Iran had "no choice" is just a lame, pathetic, and frankly unacceptable way of absolving them of their own responsibility in all of this. Again, the reality is simple: both states have done harmful things, and both have agency. That's fact. That's history. I've consistently been honest enough to acknowledge that, far from "delusional and dishonest." You on the other hand have your own dishonest, delusional denial about Iran's part in all of it on display for all of us here to see.

Delusional Pro-Iran "we dindu nuffin, those Jew boys just rolled up on us and started shooting" guy should keep those comments to internal Fars News Agency because that narrative just doesn't sell outside of internal Iranian propaganda channels - because those of us out here in the rest of the world know too much about the history and realities of Iran's actions.

+ a million
There is most definitely a pro-Iranian regime psycho on these threads, constantly spreading disinformation and propaganda in favor of Iran. It's really something to behold.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone agree that Iran get nuclear weapons

It’s a farce. They don’t get nuclear weapons. They have enriched uranium and was just about to agree to not enrich it further in Feb 27.

Why would a country that has so much oil ever need uranium unless it's to build a nuclear weapon how can anybody say oh yeah sure you can enrich for uranium in an oil-rich country it's ridiculous no one should be fooled and in fact this is proof that they never stopped their nuclear program and should be sanctioned and removed from the planet

Why would a country that supposedly has such a great economic and diplomatic relationship with China need nukes when they could be working with China on developing renewables?
Iran gets 2800+ hours of sunlight per year across most of its territories. The central plateau, Yazd, Kerman, Isfahan has world class solar irradiance values. Some of the best on the planet. And the Binalud and Manjil corridors have some of the strongest onshore wind resources in the entire Middle East. Iran could be a renewable energy powerhouse.

China has partnered with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other countries to build megascale renewable energy projects.

The catch is that China won't invest, because of sanctions. And the sanctions are there because nobody believes Iran is pursuing nuclear for energy alone. Iran needs to drop that pursuit. Bottom line. Their lives will be so much better if they do.

You're describing an ideal world where Israel isn't acting like a terrorist state. Iran wants nuclear weapons to defend against Israel, and given what occurred this year, I'd say they've been proven right. Which is extremely sad, because your ideal solution cannot happen.

You're describing a world where Iran has no agency, no choices, no alternatives, and where its only possible path is to pursue nuclear weapons “to defend itself from Israel.” But that framing ignores the choices Iran has made for decades.

If nuclear pursuit were simply a reaction to Israeli aggression, you’d expect Israel’s immediate neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, others who actually fought wars with Israel to be racing for nukes. They aren’t. They also aren’t chanting “Death to Israel” at every state function. Yet they were the ones who experienced direct conflict with Israel in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

Iran, by contrast, had no wars with Israel, no Israeli attacks on its territory, and in fact maintained cooperative ties with Israel before 1979. The first Israeli covert actions against Iran didn’t occur until decades later in the 2010s, long after Iran had already spent years funding terrorist groups that attacked Israel. And from the moment the Islamic Republic was founded, its leadership adopted “Death to Israel” as a core ideological slogan.

That wasn’t a reaction to Israeli military behavior. It was an ideological choice. It was core choice for their revolution's identity. The new regime framed Israel as illegitimate, as a Western colonial project, and as something that should not exist in the region. That ideological posture shaped everything that followed.

None of this excuses Israeli policies you find objectionable. I and many others find Israeli policies objectionable as well, I've posted numerous times here to criticize the occupation, the treatment of Palestinians, and the conduct of the IDF. Those criticisms stand on their own.

But it’s also not accurate to portray Iran as a passive victim with no alternatives but to “stand up to terrorist Israel.”

Iran made strategic decisions: supporting armed proxies, rejecting diplomatic normalization, and defining its very identity through opposition to Israel, while other regional states chose de‑escalation and coexistence. The current conflict dynamic didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it wasn’t inevitable.

If we’re going to call out harmful behavior, it has to be applied consistently. Israel has done things worth condemning. But Iran has also made choices that escalated tensions rather than reduced them. Both realities can be true at the same time.

An awful lot of blather to say, essentially, we gave them a chance to do exactly what we told them to do, but they chose self-determination instead.

As always, the choice of one is no choice.

You also cited the apparent decision of Egypt and Jordan not to pursue nuclear weapons despite prior conflicts with Israel as evidence that there does exist, in fact, a peaceful path to coexistence with Israel. Aside from the fact that the essence of your argument is delusional, deceptive, or both, wagging your finger at Iran for refusing to follow the lead of two subservient lap dogs into that hegemonic trap is kinda comical.

You’re calling it "self‑determination," but Iran’s choices weren’t forced on them by Israel or anyone else. They were ideological decisions made in 1979, long before any Israeli covert activity and long before Iran began funding armed groups across the region. And to call it "anti-hegemonic" is quite ironic given Iran has been aggressively trying to project power beyond its own border and establish its own hegemony in in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere across the region.

And dismissing Egypt and Jordan as "lap dogs" is just a cheap, lame way to avoid the obvious: those countries actually fought wars with Israel, lost territory, and still chose diplomacy over nuclear escalation. They had far more reason to pursue nukes than Iran ever did, and yet they didn’t. That’s not subservience. That’s strategy.

You don’t have to defend Israel to acknowledge that Iran made its own escalatory choices. Pretending Iran had "no choice" is just a lame, pathetic, and frankly unacceptable way of absolving them of their own responsibility in all of this. Again, the reality is simple: both states have done harmful things, and both have agency. That's fact. That's history. I've consistently been honest enough to acknowledge that, far from "delusional and dishonest." You on the other hand have your own dishonest, delusional denial about Iran's part in all of it on display for all of us here to see.

Delusional Pro-Iran "we dindu nuffin, those Jew boys just rolled up on us and started shooting" guy should keep those comments to internal Fars News Agency because that narrative just doesn't sell outside of internal Iranian propaganda channels - because those of us out here in the rest of the world know too much about the history and realities of Iran's actions.

The only people that support this war are trumps cultists and the Israeli government. You seem kind of divorced from reality.

DP. Are you really this dense? You don't have to "support this war" to know very well that the Iranian regime is a terrorist state that funds terrorist proxies across the ME. Those are facts. The PP very clearly stated that Israel has plenty to account for too, but your insistence on painting Iran as some kind of victim here just makes you look ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reports say trump is planning limited strikes on Iran to “encourage a deal”.
If this thinking makes sense, let me know.

Post your source. Every single time you make a claim. Otherwise, it's just blather to be ignored.

It’s sad you are unable to read the news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reports say trump is planning limited strikes on Iran to “encourage a deal”.
If this thinking makes sense, let me know.

Post your source. Every single time you make a claim. Otherwise, it's just blather to be ignored.

It’s sad you are unable to read the news.

You the same lying "read the news" jackass who kept refusing to post sources to back up your claim that Iran was going to accept USD1 to directly benefit Trump, and when you finally did, not a single one of your sources backed you up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone agree that Iran get nuclear weapons

It’s a farce. They don’t get nuclear weapons. They have enriched uranium and was just about to agree to not enrich it further in Feb 27.

Why would a country that has so much oil ever need uranium unless it's to build a nuclear weapon how can anybody say oh yeah sure you can enrich for uranium in an oil-rich country it's ridiculous no one should be fooled and in fact this is proof that they never stopped their nuclear program and should be sanctioned and removed from the planet

Why would a country that supposedly has such a great economic and diplomatic relationship with China need nukes when they could be working with China on developing renewables?
Iran gets 2800+ hours of sunlight per year across most of its territories. The central plateau, Yazd, Kerman, Isfahan has world class solar irradiance values. Some of the best on the planet. And the Binalud and Manjil corridors have some of the strongest onshore wind resources in the entire Middle East. Iran could be a renewable energy powerhouse.

China has partnered with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other countries to build megascale renewable energy projects.

The catch is that China won't invest, because of sanctions. And the sanctions are there because nobody believes Iran is pursuing nuclear for energy alone. Iran needs to drop that pursuit. Bottom line. Their lives will be so much better if they do.

You're describing an ideal world where Israel isn't acting like a terrorist state. Iran wants nuclear weapons to defend against Israel, and given what occurred this year, I'd say they've been proven right. Which is extremely sad, because your ideal solution cannot happen.

You're describing a world where Iran has no agency, no choices, no alternatives, and where its only possible path is to pursue nuclear weapons “to defend itself from Israel.” But that framing ignores the choices Iran has made for decades.

If nuclear pursuit were simply a reaction to Israeli aggression, you’d expect Israel’s immediate neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, others who actually fought wars with Israel to be racing for nukes. They aren’t. They also aren’t chanting “Death to Israel” at every state function. Yet they were the ones who experienced direct conflict with Israel in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

Iran, by contrast, had no wars with Israel, no Israeli attacks on its territory, and in fact maintained cooperative ties with Israel before 1979. The first Israeli covert actions against Iran didn’t occur until decades later in the 2010s, long after Iran had already spent years funding terrorist groups that attacked Israel. And from the moment the Islamic Republic was founded, its leadership adopted “Death to Israel” as a core ideological slogan.

That wasn’t a reaction to Israeli military behavior. It was an ideological choice. It was core choice for their revolution's identity. The new regime framed Israel as illegitimate, as a Western colonial project, and as something that should not exist in the region. That ideological posture shaped everything that followed.

None of this excuses Israeli policies you find objectionable. I and many others find Israeli policies objectionable as well, I've posted numerous times here to criticize the occupation, the treatment of Palestinians, and the conduct of the IDF. Those criticisms stand on their own.

But it’s also not accurate to portray Iran as a passive victim with no alternatives but to “stand up to terrorist Israel.”

Iran made strategic decisions: supporting armed proxies, rejecting diplomatic normalization, and defining its very identity through opposition to Israel, while other regional states chose de‑escalation and coexistence. The current conflict dynamic didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it wasn’t inevitable.

If we’re going to call out harmful behavior, it has to be applied consistently. Israel has done things worth condemning. But Iran has also made choices that escalated tensions rather than reduced them. Both realities can be true at the same time.

An awful lot of blather to say, essentially, we gave them a chance to do exactly what we told them to do, but they chose self-determination instead.

As always, the choice of one is no choice.

You also cited the apparent decision of Egypt and Jordan not to pursue nuclear weapons despite prior conflicts with Israel as evidence that there does exist, in fact, a peaceful path to coexistence with Israel. Aside from the fact that the essence of your argument is delusional, deceptive, or both, wagging your finger at Iran for refusing to follow the lead of two subservient lap dogs into that hegemonic trap is kinda comical.

You’re calling it "self‑determination," but Iran’s choices weren’t forced on them by Israel or anyone else. They were ideological decisions made in 1979, long before any Israeli covert activity and long before Iran began funding armed groups across the region. And to call it "anti-hegemonic" is quite ironic given Iran has been aggressively trying to project power beyond its own border and establish its own hegemony in in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere across the region.

And dismissing Egypt and Jordan as "lap dogs" is just a cheap, lame way to avoid the obvious: those countries actually fought wars with Israel, lost territory, and still chose diplomacy over nuclear escalation. They had far more reason to pursue nukes than Iran ever did, and yet they didn’t. That’s not subservience. That’s strategy.

You don’t have to defend Israel to acknowledge that Iran made its own escalatory choices. Pretending Iran had "no choice" is just a lame, pathetic, and frankly unacceptable way of absolving them of their own responsibility in all of this. Again, the reality is simple: both states have done harmful things, and both have agency. That's fact. That's history. I've consistently been honest enough to acknowledge that, far from "delusional and dishonest." You on the other hand have your own dishonest, delusional denial about Iran's part in all of it on display for all of us here to see.

Delusional Pro-Iran "we dindu nuffin, those Jew boys just rolled up on us and started shooting" guy should keep those comments to internal Fars News Agency because that narrative just doesn't sell outside of internal Iranian propaganda channels - because those of us out here in the rest of the world know too much about the history and realities of Iran's actions.

The only people that support this war are trumps cultists and the Israeli government. You seem kind of divorced from reality.

DP. Are you really this dense? You don't have to "support this war" to know very well that the Iranian regime is a terrorist state that funds terrorist proxies across the ME. Those are facts. The PP very clearly stated that Israel has plenty to account for too, but your insistence on painting Iran as some kind of victim here just makes you look ridiculous.

Exactly. I don't support Trump, and I don't support Netanyahu, I don't support American neocons who have been itching to bomb Iran for years, I don't support Jewish supremacists and Zionists, but that said you'd have to be a total ignoramus of history or in complete delusional denial to think Iran was a totally innocent victim that never did anything wrong here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone agree that Iran get nuclear weapons

It’s a farce. They don’t get nuclear weapons. They have enriched uranium and was just about to agree to not enrich it further in Feb 27.

Why would a country that has so much oil ever need uranium unless it's to build a nuclear weapon how can anybody say oh yeah sure you can enrich for uranium in an oil-rich country it's ridiculous no one should be fooled and in fact this is proof that they never stopped their nuclear program and should be sanctioned and removed from the planet

Why would a country that supposedly has such a great economic and diplomatic relationship with China need nukes when they could be working with China on developing renewables?
Iran gets 2800+ hours of sunlight per year across most of its territories. The central plateau, Yazd, Kerman, Isfahan has world class solar irradiance values. Some of the best on the planet. And the Binalud and Manjil corridors have some of the strongest onshore wind resources in the entire Middle East. Iran could be a renewable energy powerhouse.

China has partnered with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other countries to build megascale renewable energy projects.

The catch is that China won't invest, because of sanctions. And the sanctions are there because nobody believes Iran is pursuing nuclear for energy alone. Iran needs to drop that pursuit. Bottom line. Their lives will be so much better if they do.

You're describing an ideal world where Israel isn't acting like a terrorist state. Iran wants nuclear weapons to defend against Israel, and given what occurred this year, I'd say they've been proven right. Which is extremely sad, because your ideal solution cannot happen.

You're describing a world where Iran has no agency, no choices, no alternatives, and where its only possible path is to pursue nuclear weapons “to defend itself from Israel.” But that framing ignores the choices Iran has made for decades.

If nuclear pursuit were simply a reaction to Israeli aggression, you’d expect Israel’s immediate neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, others who actually fought wars with Israel to be racing for nukes. They aren’t. They also aren’t chanting “Death to Israel” at every state function. Yet they were the ones who experienced direct conflict with Israel in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

Iran, by contrast, had no wars with Israel, no Israeli attacks on its territory, and in fact maintained cooperative ties with Israel before 1979. The first Israeli covert actions against Iran didn’t occur until decades later in the 2010s, long after Iran had already spent years funding terrorist groups that attacked Israel. And from the moment the Islamic Republic was founded, its leadership adopted “Death to Israel” as a core ideological slogan.

That wasn’t a reaction to Israeli military behavior. It was an ideological choice. It was core choice for their revolution's identity. The new regime framed Israel as illegitimate, as a Western colonial project, and as something that should not exist in the region. That ideological posture shaped everything that followed.

None of this excuses Israeli policies you find objectionable. I and many others find Israeli policies objectionable as well, I've posted numerous times here to criticize the occupation, the treatment of Palestinians, and the conduct of the IDF. Those criticisms stand on their own.

But it’s also not accurate to portray Iran as a passive victim with no alternatives but to “stand up to terrorist Israel.”

Iran made strategic decisions: supporting armed proxies, rejecting diplomatic normalization, and defining its very identity through opposition to Israel, while other regional states chose de‑escalation and coexistence. The current conflict dynamic didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it wasn’t inevitable.

If we’re going to call out harmful behavior, it has to be applied consistently. Israel has done things worth condemning. But Iran has also made choices that escalated tensions rather than reduced them. Both realities can be true at the same time.

An awful lot of blather to say, essentially, we gave them a chance to do exactly what we told them to do, but they chose self-determination instead.

As always, the choice of one is no choice.

You also cited the apparent decision of Egypt and Jordan not to pursue nuclear weapons despite prior conflicts with Israel as evidence that there does exist, in fact, a peaceful path to coexistence with Israel. Aside from the fact that the essence of your argument is delusional, deceptive, or both, wagging your finger at Iran for refusing to follow the lead of two subservient lap dogs into that hegemonic trap is kinda comical.

You’re calling it "self‑determination," but Iran’s choices weren’t forced on them by Israel or anyone else. They were ideological decisions made in 1979, long before any Israeli covert activity and long before Iran began funding armed groups across the region. And to call it "anti-hegemonic" is quite ironic given Iran has been aggressively trying to project power beyond its own border and establish its own hegemony in in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere across the region.

And dismissing Egypt and Jordan as "lap dogs" is just a cheap, lame way to avoid the obvious: those countries actually fought wars with Israel, lost territory, and still chose diplomacy over nuclear escalation. They had far more reason to pursue nukes than Iran ever did, and yet they didn’t. That’s not subservience. That’s strategy.

You don’t have to defend Israel to acknowledge that Iran made its own escalatory choices. Pretending Iran had "no choice" is just a lame, pathetic, and frankly unacceptable way of absolving them of their own responsibility in all of this. Again, the reality is simple: both states have done harmful things, and both have agency. That's fact. That's history. I've consistently been honest enough to acknowledge that, far from "delusional and dishonest." You on the other hand have your own dishonest, delusional denial about Iran's part in all of it on display for all of us here to see.

Delusional Pro-Iran "we dindu nuffin, those Jew boys just rolled up on us and started shooting" guy should keep those comments to internal Fars News Agency because that narrative just doesn't sell outside of internal Iranian propaganda channels - because those of us out here in the rest of the world know too much about the history and realities of Iran's actions.

The only people that support this war are trumps cultists and the Israeli government. You seem kind of divorced from reality.

DP. Are you really this dense? You don't have to "support this war" to know very well that the Iranian regime is a terrorist state that funds terrorist proxies across the ME. Those are facts. The PP very clearly stated that Israel has plenty to account for too, but your insistence on painting Iran as some kind of victim here just makes you look ridiculous.

DP. I think everyone knows Iran has been a bad actor in the ME for a long time. The question is did ripping up the agreement Obama signed and joining Israel in a major war with Iran benefit the US and the world? And the answer is a resounding no. Our decision to join Israel with this madness is probably the dumbest thing we've ever done. There is no realistic good outcome for the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone agree that Iran get nuclear weapons

It’s a farce. They don’t get nuclear weapons. They have enriched uranium and was just about to agree to not enrich it further in Feb 27.

Why would a country that has so much oil ever need uranium unless it's to build a nuclear weapon how can anybody say oh yeah sure you can enrich for uranium in an oil-rich country it's ridiculous no one should be fooled and in fact this is proof that they never stopped their nuclear program and should be sanctioned and removed from the planet

Why would a country that supposedly has such a great economic and diplomatic relationship with China need nukes when they could be working with China on developing renewables?
Iran gets 2800+ hours of sunlight per year across most of its territories. The central plateau, Yazd, Kerman, Isfahan has world class solar irradiance values. Some of the best on the planet. And the Binalud and Manjil corridors have some of the strongest onshore wind resources in the entire Middle East. Iran could be a renewable energy powerhouse.

China has partnered with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other countries to build megascale renewable energy projects.

The catch is that China won't invest, because of sanctions. And the sanctions are there because nobody believes Iran is pursuing nuclear for energy alone. Iran needs to drop that pursuit. Bottom line. Their lives will be so much better if they do.

You're describing an ideal world where Israel isn't acting like a terrorist state. Iran wants nuclear weapons to defend against Israel, and given what occurred this year, I'd say they've been proven right. Which is extremely sad, because your ideal solution cannot happen.

You're describing a world where Iran has no agency, no choices, no alternatives, and where its only possible path is to pursue nuclear weapons “to defend itself from Israel.” But that framing ignores the choices Iran has made for decades.

If nuclear pursuit were simply a reaction to Israeli aggression, you’d expect Israel’s immediate neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, others who actually fought wars with Israel to be racing for nukes. They aren’t. They also aren’t chanting “Death to Israel” at every state function. Yet they were the ones who experienced direct conflict with Israel in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

Iran, by contrast, had no wars with Israel, no Israeli attacks on its territory, and in fact maintained cooperative ties with Israel before 1979. The first Israeli covert actions against Iran didn’t occur until decades later in the 2010s, long after Iran had already spent years funding terrorist groups that attacked Israel. And from the moment the Islamic Republic was founded, its leadership adopted “Death to Israel” as a core ideological slogan.

That wasn’t a reaction to Israeli military behavior. It was an ideological choice. It was core choice for their revolution's identity. The new regime framed Israel as illegitimate, as a Western colonial project, and as something that should not exist in the region. That ideological posture shaped everything that followed.

None of this excuses Israeli policies you find objectionable. I and many others find Israeli policies objectionable as well, I've posted numerous times here to criticize the occupation, the treatment of Palestinians, and the conduct of the IDF. Those criticisms stand on their own.

But it’s also not accurate to portray Iran as a passive victim with no alternatives but to “stand up to terrorist Israel.”

Iran made strategic decisions: supporting armed proxies, rejecting diplomatic normalization, and defining its very identity through opposition to Israel, while other regional states chose de‑escalation and coexistence. The current conflict dynamic didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it wasn’t inevitable.

If we’re going to call out harmful behavior, it has to be applied consistently. Israel has done things worth condemning. But Iran has also made choices that escalated tensions rather than reduced them. Both realities can be true at the same time.

An awful lot of blather to say, essentially, we gave them a chance to do exactly what we told them to do, but they chose self-determination instead.

As always, the choice of one is no choice.

You also cited the apparent decision of Egypt and Jordan not to pursue nuclear weapons despite prior conflicts with Israel as evidence that there does exist, in fact, a peaceful path to coexistence with Israel. Aside from the fact that the essence of your argument is delusional, deceptive, or both, wagging your finger at Iran for refusing to follow the lead of two subservient lap dogs into that hegemonic trap is kinda comical.

You’re calling it "self‑determination," but Iran’s choices weren’t forced on them by Israel or anyone else. They were ideological decisions made in 1979, long before any Israeli covert activity and long before Iran began funding armed groups across the region. And to call it "anti-hegemonic" is quite ironic given Iran has been aggressively trying to project power beyond its own border and establish its own hegemony in in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere across the region.

And dismissing Egypt and Jordan as "lap dogs" is just a cheap, lame way to avoid the obvious: those countries actually fought wars with Israel, lost territory, and still chose diplomacy over nuclear escalation. They had far more reason to pursue nukes than Iran ever did, and yet they didn’t. That’s not subservience. That’s strategy.

You don’t have to defend Israel to acknowledge that Iran made its own escalatory choices. Pretending Iran had "no choice" is just a lame, pathetic, and frankly unacceptable way of absolving them of their own responsibility in all of this. Again, the reality is simple: both states have done harmful things, and both have agency. That's fact. That's history. I've consistently been honest enough to acknowledge that, far from "delusional and dishonest." You on the other hand have your own dishonest, delusional denial about Iran's part in all of it on display for all of us here to see.

Delusional Pro-Iran "we dindu nuffin, those Jew boys just rolled up on us and started shooting" guy should keep those comments to internal Fars News Agency because that narrative just doesn't sell outside of internal Iranian propaganda channels - because those of us out here in the rest of the world know too much about the history and realities of Iran's actions.

The only people that support this war are trumps cultists and the Israeli government. You seem kind of divorced from reality.

DP. Are you really this dense? You don't have to "support this war" to know very well that the Iranian regime is a terrorist state that funds terrorist proxies across the ME. Those are facts. The PP very clearly stated that Israel has plenty to account for too, but your insistence on painting Iran as some kind of victim here just makes you look ridiculous.

Exactly. I don't support Trump, and I don't support Netanyahu, I don't support American neocons who have been itching to bomb Iran for years, I don't support Jewish supremacists and Zionists, but that said you'd have to be a total ignoramus of history or in complete delusional denial to think Iran was a totally innocent victim that never did anything wrong here.

NP here:

Curious if you played Risk as a kid?

For real. That is a game where it’s one country vs another without regard for human life.

We not only killed the new Alltollah’s Dad but also his Mother and his WIFE.

We not only destroyed Iran’s navy but also killed 19 years olds who just the day before visited the Taj Mahal.

We not only killed military targets but also 200 of their children.

We supplied weapons to Israel who just committed 10/7/23 on 4/8/26 without anyone in the US blinking an eye.

This is against my moral code.

I really could care less if “Iran” is “innocent” or “guilty” I just want my tax dollars going towards education and healthcare in the US and not killing human beings.

I’m not at all religious but if any public figure has said anything I can relate to recently it’s Pope Leo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone agree that Iran get nuclear weapons

Why would someone rip up the treaty we had in place that kept Iran from getting nuclear weapons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone agree that Iran get nuclear weapons

It’s a farce. They don’t get nuclear weapons. They have enriched uranium and was just about to agree to not enrich it further in Feb 27.

Why would a country that has so much oil ever need uranium unless it's to build a nuclear weapon how can anybody say oh yeah sure you can enrich for uranium in an oil-rich country it's ridiculous no one should be fooled and in fact this is proof that they never stopped their nuclear program and should be sanctioned and removed from the planet

Why would a country that supposedly has such a great economic and diplomatic relationship with China need nukes when they could be working with China on developing renewables?
Iran gets 2800+ hours of sunlight per year across most of its territories. The central plateau, Yazd, Kerman, Isfahan has world class solar irradiance values. Some of the best on the planet. And the Binalud and Manjil corridors have some of the strongest onshore wind resources in the entire Middle East. Iran could be a renewable energy powerhouse.

China has partnered with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other countries to build megascale renewable energy projects.

The catch is that China won't invest, because of sanctions. And the sanctions are there because nobody believes Iran is pursuing nuclear for energy alone. Iran needs to drop that pursuit. Bottom line. Their lives will be so much better if they do.

You're describing an ideal world where Israel isn't acting like a terrorist state. Iran wants nuclear weapons to defend against Israel, and given what occurred this year, I'd say they've been proven right. Which is extremely sad, because your ideal solution cannot happen.

You're describing a world where Iran has no agency, no choices, no alternatives, and where its only possible path is to pursue nuclear weapons “to defend itself from Israel.” But that framing ignores the choices Iran has made for decades.

If nuclear pursuit were simply a reaction to Israeli aggression, you’d expect Israel’s immediate neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, others who actually fought wars with Israel to be racing for nukes. They aren’t. They also aren’t chanting “Death to Israel” at every state function. Yet they were the ones who experienced direct conflict with Israel in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

Iran, by contrast, had no wars with Israel, no Israeli attacks on its territory, and in fact maintained cooperative ties with Israel before 1979. The first Israeli covert actions against Iran didn’t occur until decades later in the 2010s, long after Iran had already spent years funding terrorist groups that attacked Israel. And from the moment the Islamic Republic was founded, its leadership adopted “Death to Israel” as a core ideological slogan.

That wasn’t a reaction to Israeli military behavior. It was an ideological choice. It was core choice for their revolution's identity. The new regime framed Israel as illegitimate, as a Western colonial project, and as something that should not exist in the region. That ideological posture shaped everything that followed.

None of this excuses Israeli policies you find objectionable. I and many others find Israeli policies objectionable as well, I've posted numerous times here to criticize the occupation, the treatment of Palestinians, and the conduct of the IDF. Those criticisms stand on their own.

But it’s also not accurate to portray Iran as a passive victim with no alternatives but to “stand up to terrorist Israel.”

Iran made strategic decisions: supporting armed proxies, rejecting diplomatic normalization, and defining its very identity through opposition to Israel, while other regional states chose de‑escalation and coexistence. The current conflict dynamic didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it wasn’t inevitable.

If we’re going to call out harmful behavior, it has to be applied consistently. Israel has done things worth condemning. But Iran has also made choices that escalated tensions rather than reduced them. Both realities can be true at the same time.

An awful lot of blather to say, essentially, we gave them a chance to do exactly what we told them to do, but they chose self-determination instead.

As always, the choice of one is no choice.

You also cited the apparent decision of Egypt and Jordan not to pursue nuclear weapons despite prior conflicts with Israel as evidence that there does exist, in fact, a peaceful path to coexistence with Israel. Aside from the fact that the essence of your argument is delusional, deceptive, or both, wagging your finger at Iran for refusing to follow the lead of two subservient lap dogs into that hegemonic trap is kinda comical.

You’re calling it "self‑determination," but Iran’s choices weren’t forced on them by Israel or anyone else. They were ideological decisions made in 1979, long before any Israeli covert activity and long before Iran began funding armed groups across the region. And to call it "anti-hegemonic" is quite ironic given Iran has been aggressively trying to project power beyond its own border and establish its own hegemony in in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere across the region.

And dismissing Egypt and Jordan as "lap dogs" is just a cheap, lame way to avoid the obvious: those countries actually fought wars with Israel, lost territory, and still chose diplomacy over nuclear escalation. They had far more reason to pursue nukes than Iran ever did, and yet they didn’t. That’s not subservience. That’s strategy.

You don’t have to defend Israel to acknowledge that Iran made its own escalatory choices. Pretending Iran had "no choice" is just a lame, pathetic, and frankly unacceptable way of absolving them of their own responsibility in all of this. Again, the reality is simple: both states have done harmful things, and both have agency. That's fact. That's history. I've consistently been honest enough to acknowledge that, far from "delusional and dishonest." You on the other hand have your own dishonest, delusional denial about Iran's part in all of it on display for all of us here to see.

Delusional Pro-Iran "we dindu nuffin, those Jew boys just rolled up on us and started shooting" guy should keep those comments to internal Fars News Agency because that narrative just doesn't sell outside of internal Iranian propaganda channels - because those of us out here in the rest of the world know too much about the history and realities of Iran's actions.

The only people that support this war are trumps cultists and the Israeli government. You seem kind of divorced from reality.

DP. Are you really this dense? You don't have to "support this war" to know very well that the Iranian regime is a terrorist state that funds terrorist proxies across the ME. Those are facts. The PP very clearly stated that Israel has plenty to account for too, but your insistence on painting Iran as some kind of victim here just makes you look ridiculous.

Exactly. I don't support Trump, and I don't support Netanyahu, I don't support American neocons who have been itching to bomb Iran for years, I don't support Jewish supremacists and Zionists, but that said you'd have to be a total ignoramus of history or in complete delusional denial to think Iran was a totally innocent victim that never did anything wrong here.

NP here:

Curious if you played Risk as a kid?

For real. That is a game where it’s one country vs another without regard for human life.

We not only killed the new Alltollah’s Dad but also his Mother and his WIFE.

We not only destroyed Iran’s navy but also killed 19 years olds who just the day before visited the Taj Mahal.

We not only killed military targets but also 200 of their children.

We supplied weapons to Israel who just committed 10/7/23 on 4/8/26 without anyone in the US blinking an eye.

This is against my moral code.

I really could care less if “Iran” is “innocent” or “guilty” I just want my tax dollars going towards education and healthcare in the US and not killing human beings.

I’m not at all religious but if any public figure has said anything I can relate to recently it’s Pope Leo.

+ 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone agree that Iran get nuclear weapons

It’s a farce. They don’t get nuclear weapons. They have enriched uranium and was just about to agree to not enrich it further in Feb 27.

Why would a country that has so much oil ever need uranium unless it's to build a nuclear weapon how can anybody say oh yeah sure you can enrich for uranium in an oil-rich country it's ridiculous no one should be fooled and in fact this is proof that they never stopped their nuclear program and should be sanctioned and removed from the planet

Why would a country that supposedly has such a great economic and diplomatic relationship with China need nukes when they could be working with China on developing renewables?
Iran gets 2800+ hours of sunlight per year across most of its territories. The central plateau, Yazd, Kerman, Isfahan has world class solar irradiance values. Some of the best on the planet. And the Binalud and Manjil corridors have some of the strongest onshore wind resources in the entire Middle East. Iran could be a renewable energy powerhouse.

China has partnered with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other countries to build megascale renewable energy projects.

The catch is that China won't invest, because of sanctions. And the sanctions are there because nobody believes Iran is pursuing nuclear for energy alone. Iran needs to drop that pursuit. Bottom line. Their lives will be so much better if they do.

You're describing an ideal world where Israel isn't acting like a terrorist state. Iran wants nuclear weapons to defend against Israel, and given what occurred this year, I'd say they've been proven right. Which is extremely sad, because your ideal solution cannot happen.

You're describing a world where Iran has no agency, no choices, no alternatives, and where its only possible path is to pursue nuclear weapons “to defend itself from Israel.” But that framing ignores the choices Iran has made for decades.

If nuclear pursuit were simply a reaction to Israeli aggression, you’d expect Israel’s immediate neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, others who actually fought wars with Israel to be racing for nukes. They aren’t. They also aren’t chanting “Death to Israel” at every state function. Yet they were the ones who experienced direct conflict with Israel in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

Iran, by contrast, had no wars with Israel, no Israeli attacks on its territory, and in fact maintained cooperative ties with Israel before 1979. The first Israeli covert actions against Iran didn’t occur until decades later in the 2010s, long after Iran had already spent years funding terrorist groups that attacked Israel. And from the moment the Islamic Republic was founded, its leadership adopted “Death to Israel” as a core ideological slogan.

That wasn’t a reaction to Israeli military behavior. It was an ideological choice. It was core choice for their revolution's identity. The new regime framed Israel as illegitimate, as a Western colonial project, and as something that should not exist in the region. That ideological posture shaped everything that followed.

None of this excuses Israeli policies you find objectionable. I and many others find Israeli policies objectionable as well, I've posted numerous times here to criticize the occupation, the treatment of Palestinians, and the conduct of the IDF. Those criticisms stand on their own.

But it’s also not accurate to portray Iran as a passive victim with no alternatives but to “stand up to terrorist Israel.”

Iran made strategic decisions: supporting armed proxies, rejecting diplomatic normalization, and defining its very identity through opposition to Israel, while other regional states chose de‑escalation and coexistence. The current conflict dynamic didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it wasn’t inevitable.

If we’re going to call out harmful behavior, it has to be applied consistently. Israel has done things worth condemning. But Iran has also made choices that escalated tensions rather than reduced them. Both realities can be true at the same time.

An awful lot of blather to say, essentially, we gave them a chance to do exactly what we told them to do, but they chose self-determination instead.

As always, the choice of one is no choice.

You also cited the apparent decision of Egypt and Jordan not to pursue nuclear weapons despite prior conflicts with Israel as evidence that there does exist, in fact, a peaceful path to coexistence with Israel. Aside from the fact that the essence of your argument is delusional, deceptive, or both, wagging your finger at Iran for refusing to follow the lead of two subservient lap dogs into that hegemonic trap is kinda comical.

You’re calling it "self‑determination," but Iran’s choices weren’t forced on them by Israel or anyone else. They were ideological decisions made in 1979, long before any Israeli covert activity and long before Iran began funding armed groups across the region. And to call it "anti-hegemonic" is quite ironic given Iran has been aggressively trying to project power beyond its own border and establish its own hegemony in in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere across the region.

And dismissing Egypt and Jordan as "lap dogs" is just a cheap, lame way to avoid the obvious: those countries actually fought wars with Israel, lost territory, and still chose diplomacy over nuclear escalation. They had far more reason to pursue nukes than Iran ever did, and yet they didn’t. That’s not subservience. That’s strategy.

You don’t have to defend Israel to acknowledge that Iran made its own escalatory choices. Pretending Iran had "no choice" is just a lame, pathetic, and frankly unacceptable way of absolving them of their own responsibility in all of this. Again, the reality is simple: both states have done harmful things, and both have agency. That's fact. That's history. I've consistently been honest enough to acknowledge that, far from "delusional and dishonest." You on the other hand have your own dishonest, delusional denial about Iran's part in all of it on display for all of us here to see.

Delusional Pro-Iran "we dindu nuffin, those Jew boys just rolled up on us and started shooting" guy should keep those comments to internal Fars News Agency because that narrative just doesn't sell outside of internal Iranian propaganda channels - because those of us out here in the rest of the world know too much about the history and realities of Iran's actions.

The only people that support this war are trumps cultists and the Israeli government. You seem kind of divorced from reality.

DP. Are you really this dense? You don't have to "support this war" to know very well that the Iranian regime is a terrorist state that funds terrorist proxies across the ME. Those are facts. The PP very clearly stated that Israel has plenty to account for too, but your insistence on painting Iran as some kind of victim here just makes you look ridiculous.

Exactly. I don't support Trump, and I don't support Netanyahu, I don't support American neocons who have been itching to bomb Iran for years, I don't support Jewish supremacists and Zionists, but that said you'd have to be a total ignoramus of history or in complete delusional denial to think Iran was a totally innocent victim that never did anything wrong here.

Yet Israel is always the innocent bystander.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone agree that Iran get nuclear weapons

It’s a farce. They don’t get nuclear weapons. They have enriched uranium and was just about to agree to not enrich it further in Feb 27.

Why would a country that has so much oil ever need uranium unless it's to build a nuclear weapon how can anybody say oh yeah sure you can enrich for uranium in an oil-rich country it's ridiculous no one should be fooled and in fact this is proof that they never stopped their nuclear program and should be sanctioned and removed from the planet

Why would a country that supposedly has such a great economic and diplomatic relationship with China need nukes when they could be working with China on developing renewables?
Iran gets 2800+ hours of sunlight per year across most of its territories. The central plateau, Yazd, Kerman, Isfahan has world class solar irradiance values. Some of the best on the planet. And the Binalud and Manjil corridors have some of the strongest onshore wind resources in the entire Middle East. Iran could be a renewable energy powerhouse.

China has partnered with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other countries to build megascale renewable energy projects.

The catch is that China won't invest, because of sanctions. And the sanctions are there because nobody believes Iran is pursuing nuclear for energy alone. Iran needs to drop that pursuit. Bottom line. Their lives will be so much better if they do.

You're describing an ideal world where Israel isn't acting like a terrorist state. Iran wants nuclear weapons to defend against Israel, and given what occurred this year, I'd say they've been proven right. Which is extremely sad, because your ideal solution cannot happen.

You're describing a world where Iran has no agency, no choices, no alternatives, and where its only possible path is to pursue nuclear weapons “to defend itself from Israel.” But that framing ignores the choices Iran has made for decades.

If nuclear pursuit were simply a reaction to Israeli aggression, you’d expect Israel’s immediate neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, others who actually fought wars with Israel to be racing for nukes. They aren’t. They also aren’t chanting “Death to Israel” at every state function. Yet they were the ones who experienced direct conflict with Israel in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

Iran, by contrast, had no wars with Israel, no Israeli attacks on its territory, and in fact maintained cooperative ties with Israel before 1979. The first Israeli covert actions against Iran didn’t occur until decades later in the 2010s, long after Iran had already spent years funding terrorist groups that attacked Israel. And from the moment the Islamic Republic was founded, its leadership adopted “Death to Israel” as a core ideological slogan.

That wasn’t a reaction to Israeli military behavior. It was an ideological choice. It was core choice for their revolution's identity. The new regime framed Israel as illegitimate, as a Western colonial project, and as something that should not exist in the region. That ideological posture shaped everything that followed.

None of this excuses Israeli policies you find objectionable. I and many others find Israeli policies objectionable as well, I've posted numerous times here to criticize the occupation, the treatment of Palestinians, and the conduct of the IDF. Those criticisms stand on their own.

But it’s also not accurate to portray Iran as a passive victim with no alternatives but to “stand up to terrorist Israel.”

Iran made strategic decisions: supporting armed proxies, rejecting diplomatic normalization, and defining its very identity through opposition to Israel, while other regional states chose de‑escalation and coexistence. The current conflict dynamic didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it wasn’t inevitable.

If we’re going to call out harmful behavior, it has to be applied consistently. Israel has done things worth condemning. But Iran has also made choices that escalated tensions rather than reduced them. Both realities can be true at the same time.

An awful lot of blather to say, essentially, we gave them a chance to do exactly what we told them to do, but they chose self-determination instead.

As always, the choice of one is no choice.

You also cited the apparent decision of Egypt and Jordan not to pursue nuclear weapons despite prior conflicts with Israel as evidence that there does exist, in fact, a peaceful path to coexistence with Israel. Aside from the fact that the essence of your argument is delusional, deceptive, or both, wagging your finger at Iran for refusing to follow the lead of two subservient lap dogs into that hegemonic trap is kinda comical.

You’re calling it "self‑determination," but Iran’s choices weren’t forced on them by Israel or anyone else. They were ideological decisions made in 1979, long before any Israeli covert activity and long before Iran began funding armed groups across the region. And to call it "anti-hegemonic" is quite ironic given Iran has been aggressively trying to project power beyond its own border and establish its own hegemony in in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere across the region.

And dismissing Egypt and Jordan as "lap dogs" is just a cheap, lame way to avoid the obvious: those countries actually fought wars with Israel, lost territory, and still chose diplomacy over nuclear escalation. They had far more reason to pursue nukes than Iran ever did, and yet they didn’t. That’s not subservience. That’s strategy.

You don’t have to defend Israel to acknowledge that Iran made its own escalatory choices. Pretending Iran had "no choice" is just a lame, pathetic, and frankly unacceptable way of absolving them of their own responsibility in all of this. Again, the reality is simple: both states have done harmful things, and both have agency. That's fact. That's history. I've consistently been honest enough to acknowledge that, far from "delusional and dishonest." You on the other hand have your own dishonest, delusional denial about Iran's part in all of it on display for all of us here to see.

Delusional Pro-Iran "we dindu nuffin, those Jew boys just rolled up on us and started shooting" guy should keep those comments to internal Fars News Agency because that narrative just doesn't sell outside of internal Iranian propaganda channels - because those of us out here in the rest of the world know too much about the history and realities of Iran's actions.

The only people that support this war are trumps cultists and the Israeli government. You seem kind of divorced from reality.

DP. Are you really this dense? You don't have to "support this war" to know very well that the Iranian regime is a terrorist state that funds terrorist proxies across the ME. Those are facts. The PP very clearly stated that Israel has plenty to account for too, but your insistence on painting Iran as some kind of victim here just makes you look ridiculous.

Exactly. I don't support Trump, and I don't support Netanyahu, I don't support American neocons who have been itching to bomb Iran for years, I don't support Jewish supremacists and Zionists, but that said you'd have to be a total ignoramus of history or in complete delusional denial to think Iran was a totally innocent victim that never did anything wrong here.

NP here:

Curious if you played Risk as a kid?

For real. That is a game where it’s one country vs another without regard for human life.

We not only killed the new Alltollah’s Dad but also his Mother and his WIFE.

We not only destroyed Iran’s navy but also killed 19 years olds who just the day before visited the Taj Mahal.

We not only killed military targets but also 200 of their children.

We supplied weapons to Israel who just committed 10/7/23 on 4/8/26 without anyone in the US blinking an eye.

This is against my moral code.

I really could care less if “Iran” is “innocent” or “guilty” I just want my tax dollars going towards education and healthcare in the US and not killing human beings.

I’m not at all religious but if any public figure has said anything I can relate to recently it’s Pope Leo.

+100

[Anonymous]

Netanyahu says he launched the war on Iran, which according to the ADL he shouldn’t say because it’s antisemitism:

“All of this happened because we initiated, we acted, we attacked.”

— Benjamin Netanyahu

https://x.com/MOSSADil/status/2043038485850865933

[Anonymous]

At what point does China decide to shoot their shot and cripple the dollar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone agree that Iran get nuclear weapons

It’s a farce. They don’t get nuclear weapons. They have enriched uranium and was just about to agree to not enrich it further in Feb 27.

Why would a country that has so much oil ever need uranium unless it's to build a nuclear weapon how can anybody say oh yeah sure you can enrich for uranium in an oil-rich country it's ridiculous no one should be fooled and in fact this is proof that they never stopped their nuclear program and should be sanctioned and removed from the planet

Why would a country that supposedly has such a great economic and diplomatic relationship with China need nukes when they could be working with China on developing renewables?
Iran gets 2800+ hours of sunlight per year across most of its territories. The central plateau, Yazd, Kerman, Isfahan has world class solar irradiance values. Some of the best on the planet. And the Binalud and Manjil corridors have some of the strongest onshore wind resources in the entire Middle East. Iran could be a renewable energy powerhouse.

China has partnered with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other countries to build megascale renewable energy projects.

The catch is that China won't invest, because of sanctions. And the sanctions are there because nobody believes Iran is pursuing nuclear for energy alone. Iran needs to drop that pursuit. Bottom line. Their lives will be so much better if they do.

You're describing an ideal world where Israel isn't acting like a terrorist state. Iran wants nuclear weapons to defend against Israel, and given what occurred this year, I'd say they've been proven right. Which is extremely sad, because your ideal solution cannot happen.

You're describing a world where Iran has no agency, no choices, no alternatives, and where its only possible path is to pursue nuclear weapons “to defend itself from Israel.” But that framing ignores the choices Iran has made for decades.

If nuclear pursuit were simply a reaction to Israeli aggression, you’d expect Israel’s immediate neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, others who actually fought wars with Israel to be racing for nukes. They aren’t. They also aren’t chanting “Death to Israel” at every state function. Yet they were the ones who experienced direct conflict with Israel in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

Iran, by contrast, had no wars with Israel, no Israeli attacks on its territory, and in fact maintained cooperative ties with Israel before 1979. The first Israeli covert actions against Iran didn’t occur until decades later in the 2010s, long after Iran had already spent years funding terrorist groups that attacked Israel. And from the moment the Islamic Republic was founded, its leadership adopted “Death to Israel” as a core ideological slogan.

That wasn’t a reaction to Israeli military behavior. It was an ideological choice. It was core choice for their revolution's identity. The new regime framed Israel as illegitimate, as a Western colonial project, and as something that should not exist in the region. That ideological posture shaped everything that followed.

None of this excuses Israeli policies you find objectionable. I and many others find Israeli policies objectionable as well, I've posted numerous times here to criticize the occupation, the treatment of Palestinians, and the conduct of the IDF. Those criticisms stand on their own.

But it’s also not accurate to portray Iran as a passive victim with no alternatives but to “stand up to terrorist Israel.”

Iran made strategic decisions: supporting armed proxies, rejecting diplomatic normalization, and defining its very identity through opposition to Israel, while other regional states chose de‑escalation and coexistence. The current conflict dynamic didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it wasn’t inevitable.

If we’re going to call out harmful behavior, it has to be applied consistently. Israel has done things worth condemning. But Iran has also made choices that escalated tensions rather than reduced them. Both realities can be true at the same time.

An awful lot of blather to say, essentially, we gave them a chance to do exactly what we told them to do, but they chose self-determination instead.

As always, the choice of one is no choice.

You also cited the apparent decision of Egypt and Jordan not to pursue nuclear weapons despite prior conflicts with Israel as evidence that there does exist, in fact, a peaceful path to coexistence with Israel. Aside from the fact that the essence of your argument is delusional, deceptive, or both, wagging your finger at Iran for refusing to follow the lead of two subservient lap dogs into that hegemonic trap is kinda comical.

You’re calling it "self‑determination," but Iran’s choices weren’t forced on them by Israel or anyone else. They were ideological decisions made in 1979, long before any Israeli covert activity and long before Iran began funding armed groups across the region. And to call it "anti-hegemonic" is quite ironic given Iran has been aggressively trying to project power beyond its own border and establish its own hegemony in in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere across the region.

And dismissing Egypt and Jordan as "lap dogs" is just a cheap, lame way to avoid the obvious: those countries actually fought wars with Israel, lost territory, and still chose diplomacy over nuclear escalation. They had far more reason to pursue nukes than Iran ever did, and yet they didn’t. That’s not subservience. That’s strategy.

You don’t have to defend Israel to acknowledge that Iran made its own escalatory choices. Pretending Iran had "no choice" is just a lame, pathetic, and frankly unacceptable way of absolving them of their own responsibility in all of this. Again, the reality is simple: both states have done harmful things, and both have agency. That's fact. That's history. I've consistently been honest enough to acknowledge that, far from "delusional and dishonest." You on the other hand have your own dishonest, delusional denial about Iran's part in all of it on display for all of us here to see.

Delusional Pro-Iran "we dindu nuffin, those Jew boys just rolled up on us and started shooting" guy should keep those comments to internal Fars News Agency because that narrative just doesn't sell outside of internal Iranian propaganda channels - because those of us out here in the rest of the world know too much about the history and realities of Iran's actions.

The only people that support this war are trumps cultists and the Israeli government. You seem kind of divorced from reality.

DP. Are you really this dense? You don't have to "support this war" to know very well that the Iranian regime is a terrorist state that funds terrorist proxies across the ME. Those are facts. The PP very clearly stated that Israel has plenty to account for too, but your insistence on painting Iran as some kind of victim here just makes you look ridiculous.

Exactly. I don't support Trump, and I don't support Netanyahu, I don't support American neocons who have been itching to bomb Iran for years, I don't support Jewish supremacists and Zionists, but that said you'd have to be a total ignoramus of history or in complete delusional denial to think Iran was a totally innocent victim that never did anything wrong here.

NP here:

Curious if you played Risk as a kid?

For real. That is a game where it’s one country vs another without regard for human life.

We not only killed the new Alltollah’s Dad but also his Mother and his WIFE.

We not only destroyed Iran’s navy but also killed 19 years olds who just the day before visited the Taj Mahal.

We not only killed military targets but also 200 of their children.

We supplied weapons to Israel who just committed 10/7/23 on 4/8/26 without anyone in the US blinking an eye.

This is against my moral code.

I really could care less if “Iran” is “innocent” or “guilty” I just want my tax dollars going towards education and healthcare in the US and not killing human beings.

I’m not at all religious but if any public figure has said anything I can relate to recently it’s Pope Leo.

+1 a billion times over again

Incidentally, based on my observations, this is the position of the vast majority of the posters here who have been maligned and smeared as “terrorist supporters”, etc.