Not usually an intervention fan but Iran was different

1

Thats fair, however I think other factors made it a prime time to strike. The popular discontent in Iran against the government, weakened munitions from 12-day war, and struggling currency made a perfect storm to topple the regime. I think like North Korea, Iran saw nuclear weapons as necessary to their survival and would not have stopped enriching uranium no matter what.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

It makes sense, considering Israel has nuclear weapons and wants them wiped off the face of the earth equally as much as Iran wants to wipe them. If Israel should have nukes, I feel like Iran is justified in having them. If Iran shouldn’t have nukes, I don’t think Israel is justified in having them

1

Anonymous OP 3w

I’m of the opinion that the less nukes, the better. But being realistic, I think the US would never pressure Israel to give up their nukes and we’d never strike them. Israel’s history as an ally and irans “death to America” ideology are wildly different and I don’t see the US forcing Israel to hand over nukes.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

We tried to, in the 60s. Then JFK was assassinated, and then all of a sudden America was fine with Israel having nukes. Israel doesn’t view us as an ally, but a means to an end. Also, they’re chanting “death to America” way more now that we bombed them than they had before

1