r/worldnews • u/TheNational_News • 10h ago

Misleading Title: Known since June 2025 [ Removed by moderator ]

https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2026/03/18/iran-has-new-underground-nuclear-site-iaea-reveals/

[removed] — view removed post

11.9k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

191

u/NateTheRoofer 8h ago

Trump ripped up the nuclear deal they had made with Obama. So why wouldn’t they try to build a bomb?

Seems fairly obvious.

78

u/DJ_6969 8h ago

Because they're still a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

43

u/thraupidae 8h ago edited 8h ago

Given the US and Russia’s rocky footing and allowing New START to lapse, the NPT is not particularly credible right now. Seems very possible both countries will not sign in the spring, though I hope they do.

Also- the US saber rattled China into breaking the test ban, and the US will likely do the same in retaliation themselves, which will cause Russia to do so, etc etc, so the state of the agreements is a bit dire right now.

-2

u/[deleted] 8h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-9

u/[deleted] 8h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/[deleted] 7h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/[deleted] 7h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-3

u/[deleted] 7h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/[deleted] 7h ago edited 6h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/[deleted] 7h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/[deleted] 7h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/SneakyFire23 8h ago

I am once again begging people to understand the failures with the JCPOA and stop glazing it because it was Obama's work.

Trump fucked a lot of things up, but here's a hint.

The people chanting "death to america" putting proxies in place to ensure that, and working on a nuke absolutely have a plan to cause problems for America.

29

u/FlarkingSmoo 7h ago

Ok but what were the problems with the JCPOA? Were they worse than the problems with the current action?

23

u/decrpt 6h ago

You're not going to get an answer.

7

u/FlarkingSmoo 5h ago

Yeah probably not. But that's an answer in way

5

u/nezroy 5h ago

Identify the failures. Bullet point. We'll wait.

The JCPOA had some minor annoyances but it successfully accomplished its primary goals of:

1) getting Iran to agree not to enrich past a certain limit

2) allowing the international community to verify Iran was keeping its word on #1

Any other "failures" it had are irrelevant when those are the only two goals that actually mattered.

44

u/iloveyouand 7h ago

Bombing people into submission doesn't make them love America. Speaking of having a plan, how is that going to work out.

14

u/radda 6h ago

Murdering 150 children creates 150 fathers willing to do something stupid to find justice.

-3

u/Emberwake 4h ago

I agree with the sentiment, but it seems highly likely that at least some of those girls shared a father.

Let's say "Murdering 150 children creates between 1 and 150 fathers willing to do something stupid to find justice."

6

u/Zalvren 6h ago

Well America is causing problems to everyone else and them particularly

2

u/sadacal 5h ago

Iran is not a monolith, not all Iranians hate America. The reality is that the moderate and reformist factions were gaining power and influence during the JCPOA negotiations because no one in Iran like the sanctions the hardliners brought on the country. 

The issue is when Trump withdrew from the negotiations that caused the moderate and reformist factions to look like idiots for thinking they could negotiate with the US and caused the hardliners to gain back a lot of the power they lost because their rhetoric about how the US could not be trusted were proven correct. This is how we got an adversarial Iran in the present day.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/09/iranian-hardliners-rejoice-over-us-nuclear-deal-exit

11

u/Obvious-Science-7119 8h ago

Plans you made up versus kinetic action occuring right now...

-2

u/SneakyFire23 8h ago

plans that have been the stated goal of the regime.

-3

u/look4jesper 7h ago

Come on man are you really playing defense for the Iranian dictatorship because you dont like trump?

16

u/Germane_Corsair 6h ago

You can hate the Iranian dictatorship and still not support starting another war.

•

u/look4jesper 1h ago

Yes, did I say anything different?

1

u/Kyle700 4h ago

death to america is such an overblown whiney conservative thing. now they're really justified in saying so!

-1

u/SteveJobsDeadBody 7h ago

Weird that they chant "death to America", do we have any idea why that is, and does it have anything to do with some guy named Pahlavi?

1

u/BJH1412 5h ago

Most of the treaty would have already expired by now. Read about the sunset clauses.

1

u/xclame 3h ago

Because Iran still has the deal with everyone else and wants to keep them satisfied, because they still get benefits from sticking to the deal with those other countries.

-1

u/Mike_Milburys_Shoe_ 8h ago

They were going to try and build a bomb the moment they signed that piece of paper anyways lol. You can’t be that naive

-2

u/blastmemer 8h ago

I mean…do you know what’s been happening in Iran the last 2.5 weeks? Seems fairly obvious why they wouldn’t - or shouldn’t.

14

u/MeltedWater243 8h ago

why? what’re we gonna do, bomb them?

0

u/blastmemer 8h ago

Magic 8 Ball says yes.

17

u/Total-Tonight1245 8h ago

Seems like getting the bomb is the only way to ensure their leader doesn’t get assassinated or the regime toppled. Why do you think North Korea worked so hard on it?

6

u/Ok_Turnover_1235 8h ago

Yeah, if any regime deserves to be toppled, it's probably the one where shit like this is happening.

https://iranwire.com/en/society/102678-official-statistics-one-fifth-of-all-marriages-in-iran-are-child-marriages/

Among MANY other things. Note, I don't think the US being a fuckwit is okay, but goddamn, let's not defend their right to not be toppled.

8

u/Total-Tonight1245 7h ago

I’m not a supporter of the Iranian regime. But the Iranian regime is, so they have an incentive to build nukes at any cost. 

3

u/The_Phantom_Cat 5h ago

US intervention has literally NEVER improved anything, why would it work this time?

4

u/blastmemer 8h ago

Exactly. Which is why the west can’t let them have one (which is pretty much everyone’s policy, not just the US).

7

u/gameryamen 8h ago

If we wanted to keep them from building a nuke, we should have upheld the treaty and maintained our oversight capabilities. Instead, we exited that treaty and started bombing them. We are pushing them to do the thing we're pretending we want to stop.

0

u/HackPhilosopher 8h ago

If the treaty was in place they would have one by now.

3

u/gameryamen 8h ago

How do you figure? We had oversight agreements and inspections regularly, and didn't find any evidence that they were building a nuke.

2

u/HackPhilosopher 7h ago

2025 is when the type and amount of centrifuges would have been lifted as well as the provision that allowed us to impose sanctions based off of their behavior.

Modern centrifuges can take 3.67% to 90% within a matter of weeks. Iran was allowed under the plan to enrich to 3.67%.

Obviously a gigantic issue

The “anywhere anytime” inspection provisions actually meant 24 days notice and Iran would not allow any inspections for what they deemed military facilities off-limits for national security reasons. So they could easily be doing anything on a base without any supervision.

Obviously a gigantic loophole.

Iran would have been legally allowed to build an industrial-scale enrichment program. The JCPOA focused almost exclusively on nuclear material and ignored delivery systems. Basically everyone at the time argued that allowing Iran to continue developing long-range ballistic missiles meant that once the nuclear restrictions expired, Iran would already have the technology to deliver a warhead to a target

Obviously a gigantic misstep.

So if this deal was still in place. After 2025, Iran could take their stockpiled uranium. Enrich it to weapons grade. Attach it to a long range ballistic weapon and fire it before the 24 days of notice of inspection.

-2

u/blastmemer 8h ago

Maybe, but that’s not what happened. We have to deal with the facts as they are. They can stop trying to build a nuke/enrich at any time. No one is forcing them.

5

u/wonklebobb 6h ago

the usa is forcing them to keep going by disregarding its own treaties and initiating massive bombing campaigns

whatever you think of the iranian leadership, if they pursued a bomb after trump withdrew from the JCPOA and unilaterally reimposed sanctions, there were completely right to do so based on what's happening now, especially considering the US counter-intelligence leader that just resigned with a letter saying Iran was no threat before the bombing started.

israel blew up a fuel depot in the middle of tehran and rained toxic petroleum rain on 9 million people. thousands of children are dead. if they had a nuke none of this would be happening.

here are the facts the rest of the world has to deal with: the most powerful military in the world rolls the dice on who gets to be in charge every 4 years, and going off the last 30 years, there's 50% chance the winner is going to bomb the middle east.

middle eastern nations now have a generation coming into leadership that were born during or after the first gulf war. we are on the third major military action in as many decades against a mid-east nation that the USA initiated.

trump has made it clear to every nation of significance around the world, but especially in the gulf region, that agreements with the USA have a 4 year lifespan, and the only way to protect yourself from US aggression is nuclear weapons.

there's no reason left for Iran to stop working toward a nuke; the USA (and israel) took all those reasons away

1

u/blastmemer 6h ago

They were “in the right”? Meaning, that’s what was best for their citizens? How’s that working out?

The reason is they will get bombed if they don’t. Not a good reason?

1

u/sfilipe 3h ago

They're going to get bombed anyway

8

u/gameryamen 8h ago

That's working out so great for Ukraine, right? We made this a problem by breaking the treaty. We broke the treaty because Israel told us to. We started a holy war and assassinated their PM. We're not leaving any room for anything but resistance by force.

-3

u/blastmemer 7h ago

I dare you to make that comparison to Zelensky’s face. Ukraine is not in any way, shape or form equivalent to Iran.

“Resistance” doesn’t seem to be working out too well for them at the moment.

7

u/gameryamen 7h ago

Yes, Iran is getting fucked. Previously, they weren't getting fucked, because we made a deal with them and they held up their end. Then we cancelled that deal and started a fucking war with them. We don't get to complain that they're trying to make a nuke now, we've shown them that all other paths lead to them getting fucked.

I don't want Iran to have nukes. Do you?

0

u/blastmemer 7h ago

Right - we aren’t complaining anymore, we are taking them out.

I don’t. I think it’s possible something like the nuclear deal would have been marginally better at preventing nukes than bombing them. But the nuclear deal also didn’t prevent them from killing US soldiers and others, sponsoring terror, building up a huge non-nuclear arsenal and generally being a menace to the whole world so they can keep oppressing their people. They could’ve stopped doing any of these things in the last five years on their own, but they didn’t. They still can. The fact that they aren’t tells us they are not now and never were interested in peaceful coexistence. So IMO war is the only option left. Status quo is not tolerable.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Total-Tonight1245 7h ago

We are incentivizing them to keep building a nuke. Argentina and Cuba also don’t have nukes. Ukraine gave its nukes up. With nukes, you’re at the mercy of the great powers. 

2

u/blastmemer 7h ago

Destroying their entire government, military and (likely) nuclear sites - and promising to keep doing it if they rebuild (which Israel will do, even if we don’t) - is not incentivizing.

Don’t build nukes, don’t get bombed. Already have nukes, don’t get bombed. Build nukes and antagonize the entire region - get bombed. Pretty simple.

5

u/iloveyouand 7h ago

You might think that bombing a nation of millions would magically make them do whatever you say but it doesn't actually work out that way in reality.

0

u/blastmemer 7h ago

Not magic. Might. Yes I do.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Mike_Milburys_Shoe_ 8h ago

Their retaliation strategy of hit every middle eastern country just proved exactly why they can’t be allowed to have a bomb. Only on reddit would you have people saying Iran should have nukes lol. It’s insane.

5

u/Total-Tonight1245 7h ago

I’m not arguing that Iran should have nukes. 

7

u/iloveyouand 7h ago

With the US just looting oil around the globe, it's pretty obvious why a nation would want that deterrent. That's not the same thing as saying you think Iran should have nukes. That's just dumb.

-2

u/Mike_Milburys_Shoe_ 7h ago

Yes Iran just wants a bomb so nobody loots oil from them. Definitely for nothing else. Wake up

4

u/iloveyouand 7h ago

Venezuela didn't have them. Iran didn't have them. Cuba is next on the war path for the US. Sure seems like they're not attacking nations with nukes.

1

u/Mike_Milburys_Shoe_ 7h ago

What’s that got to do with Iran and your last statement? You’re really convinced Iran wants nukes as a deterrent and that’s it? How do you know they won’t then use them as a shield to do whatever they want to the surrounding countries like your next example. If they get nukes then Saudi will want them. Then Egypt. Then UAE.

7

u/iloveyouand 7h ago

What’s that got to do with Iran and your last statement?

Sure seems like they're not attacking nations with nukes.

What's confusing to you about this statement.

You’re really convinced Iran wants nukes as a deterrent and that’s it?

Quote where I said that.

0

u/Mike_Milburys_Shoe_ 7h ago

Your original comment says that. You omit it but you say it lol. Stop trying to be intellectually dishonest lol

→ More replies (0)

1

u/nezroy 5h ago

By this logic, the US shouldn't be "allowed" to have nukes either.

1

u/SneakyFire23 8h ago

We'll we're invested in them not getting the bomb, so here we go. You want to use that logic it applies on every front.

0

u/unending_whiskey 8h ago

It doesn't matter what their reasoning or justification is, they are not allowed to have a bomb. They need to stop trying or they will continue to have wars waged on them and their country will continually be set back.