1. Did Iran comply with the 3.67% enrichment limit of JCPOA?
2. Would Iran have nuked Israel or the US “but for” this 2026 military action?
Please try and leave the Trump/anti-Trump idiocy out of this. I’m looking for your serious answers. Here - let me show you how:
My answers, based on reports to date:
1. No. Iran did not comply.
2. No. Iran would use a nuke as a threat, but would not have unilaterally fired on Israel or the US.
2. Would Iran have nuked Israel or the US “but for” this 2026 military action?
I believe Iran answered that question innumerable times over the past half-century and particularly on October 7, 2023. That regime must be eradicated.
1- yes, the enriched above
2- no, they wouldn't have.
1. Did Iran comply with the 3.67% enrichment limit of JCPOA?
Before 2019, yes. In 2019 they admitted going to go to 4.2 or some such, but the deal was in the garbage can at that point.
2. Would Iran have nuked Israel or the US “but for” this 2026 military action?
No. Just like why Stalin never used bombs, or North Korea, or why Hitler didn't release Germany's massive chemical weapons.
Tell your brother we miss him.
1. Did Iran comply with the 3.67% enrichment limit of JCPOA?
Before 2019, yes. In 2019 they admitted going to go to 4.2 or some such, but the deal was in the garbage can at that point.
2. Would Iran have nuked Israel or the US “but for” this 2026 military action?
No. Just like why Stalin never used bombs, or North Korea, or why Hitler didn't release Germany's massive chemical weapons.
Tell your brother we miss him.
I’ll tell him, but Zebra damns all gentlemen and hates all computers.
1. No.
2. Your wording precludes me answering properly. My answer is, Iran will still eventually nuke Israel unless another Israeli enemy does it first.
Now, back at you. Speaking of your brother, do you consider Thomas Massie one of yours and what's your opinion of his endeavors related to the Epstein files?
Iran will still eventually nuke Israel unless another Israeli enemy does it first.
Maybe Iran will try but might Jesus then reveal himself to Israel as their Messiah and stop Iran?
It's not just Iran...
victor zhikai gao If Israel uses nuclear weapons, there will be no country called Israel 03 2026
1. Did Iran comply with the 3.67% enrichment limit of JCPOA?
If I've read correctly, they were in compliance, and that was attested to by the IAE inspectors.
2. Would Iran have nuked Israel or the US “but for” this 2026 military action?
I don't believe so. Those with nuclear ambitions are doing it for deterrence, not offense, and they saw what happened to Ghaddafi. Iran probably wouldn't have been subjected to this kind of assault if they had nukes.
and they saw what happened to Ghaddafi
Thanks to Obama. He wasn't called "The Amateur" for nothing!
1. Did Iran comply with the 3.67% enrichment limit of JCPOA?
If I've read correctly, they were in compliance, and that was attested to by the IAE inspectors.
2. Would Iran have nuked Israel or the US “but for” this 2026 military action?
I don't believe so. Those with nuclear ambitions are doing it for deterrence, not offense, and they saw what happened to Ghaddafi. Iran probably would have been subjected to this kind of assault if they had nukes.
For many decades now, it's been standard practice in the study of international relations to assume states are rational actors. This means that states have national interests, and will make decisions in order to further those interests. This paradigm has done a very good job of explaining the history of nuclear weapons: why some states seek them, why others don't want them, and why even those who have them don't want to use them.
It also explains why Israel has never confirmed possessing them. They believe that ambiguity best furthers their security interests. However, there is some historical evidence that Israel came close to using a nuclear device twice. The first was in the 1967 war, when they reportedly considered detonating a bomb in a remote location as a means of announcing to their enemies their possession of the technology as a warning to back off. The second was in 1973, and it's more troubling. Supposedly, they readied nuclear weapons to use as a last resort; if it became clear that the war was going to be lost, and Israel wiped off the map, they were going to take as many Arabs with them as possible.
The reason I bring this up, and why it relates to Iran, is this: at first glance, a normal person might say, "That's not the thinking of a rational actor." But if you find the mere existence of a particular other actor as a threat to your security, then wiping them out when you have the chance actually could be entirely rational. Had Israel reached that point in 1973, perhaps the devastation caused would have allowed whatever rump state of Israel that remained to survive and at least have some chance of rebuilding, as the Arab states would be forced to turn their attention away from Israel and toward responding to the attacks.
The concern with Iran is that they clearly have a similar attitude to Israel, perhaps on an even deeper level. It is possible that Iran's leaders would weigh the costs and benefits of whatever international response to an atomic attack would be, and would find that the benefit of having a chance to destroy the "Zionist regime" would on the balance outweigh the negative consequences for themselves. In this particular view of things, you have to imagine Iran as sort of a suicide bomber, but on a global scale. If a person can decide that death is worth blowing up a synagogue, then a state can certainly decide that national death is worth blowing up the state of Israel.
1. No.
2. Your wording precludes me answering properly. My answer is, Iran will still eventually nuke Israel unless another Israeli enemy does it first.
Now, back at you. Speaking of your brother, do you consider Thomas Massie one of yours and what's your opinion of his endeavors related to the Epstein files?
not sure what you mean by “one of yours” but he is not my rep and I cannot vote for or against him - but I “get” to watch his commercials. He is running on cutting the budget deficit waaay more than the Epstein files.
My view on the Epstein files is this - “put up or shut up” - it has gone nowhere at record speed - release whatever exists and let the chips fall - but stop the politics. Neither side gives a damn about the victims, so let’s call that bluff.
Epstein was convicted in 2007. 16 years ago. Since then, everybody alleges a lot, usually using lots of hearsay, but nobody puts up evidence. I was a lawyer. Allegations don’t mean much to me. I’ll wait on the evidence. Especially the cross-exams from the Potted Plants. Until then, can I borrow a copy of that video of whores peeing on Trump in that Moscow hotel?
1. Did Iran comply with the 3.67% enrichment limit of JCPOA?
2. Would Iran have nuked Israel or the US “but for” this 2026 military action?
Please try and leave the Trump/anti-Trump idiocy out of this. I’m looking for your serious answers. Here - let me show you how:
My answers, based on reports to date:
1. No. Iran did not comply.
2. No. Iran would use a nuke as a threat, but would not have unilaterally fired on Israel or the US.
1. No, likely not, even prior to the US pulling out and new sanctions coming.
2. No, likely not, though given their predilection for being the region's chaos agent and their hatred of Israel how could anyone rule it out?
A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying "that was f***ing awesome"
1. Did Iran comply with the 3.67% enrichment limit of JCPOA?
If I've read correctly, they were in compliance, and that was attested to by the IAE inspectors.
2. Would Iran have nuked Israel or the US “but for” this 2026 military action?
I don't believe so. Those with nuclear ambitions are doing it for deterrence, not offense, and they saw what happened to Ghaddafi. Iran probably would have been subjected to this kind of assault if they had nukes.
For many decades now, it's been standard practice in the study of international relations to assume states are rational actors. This means that states have national interests, and will make decisions in order to further those interests. This paradigm has done a very good job of explaining the history of nuclear weapons: why some states seek them, why others don't want them, and why even those who have them don't want to use them.
It also explains why Israel has never confirmed possessing them. They believe that ambiguity best furthers their security interests. However, there is some historical evidence that Israel came close to using a nuclear device twice. The first was in the 1967 war, when they reportedly considered detonating a bomb in a remote location as a means of announcing to their enemies their possession of the technology as a warning to back off. The second was in 1973, and it's more troubling. Supposedly, they readied nuclear weapons to use as a last resort; if it became clear that the war was going to be lost, and Israel wiped off the map, they were going to take as many Arabs with them as possible.
The reason I bring this up, and why it relates to Iran, is this: at first glance, a normal person might say, "That's not the thinking of a rational actor." But if you find the mere existence of a particular other actor as a threat to your security, then wiping them out when you have the chance actually could be entirely rational. Had Israel reached that point in 1973, perhaps the devastation caused would have allowed whatever rump state of Israel that remained to survive and at least have some chance of rebuilding, as the Arab states would be forced to turn their attention away from Israel and toward responding to the attacks.
The concern with Iran is that they clearly have a similar attitude to Israel, perhaps on an even deeper level. It is possible that Iran's leaders would weigh the costs and benefits of whatever international response to an atomic attack would be, and would find that the benefit of having a chance to destroy the "Zionist regime" would on the balance outweigh the negative consequences for themselves. In this particular view of things, you have to imagine Iran as sort of a suicide bomber, but on a global scale. If a person can decide that death is worth blowing up a synagogue, then a state can certainly decide that national death is worth blowing up the state of Israel.
It's possible that the Iranian regime might believe that "wiping Israel off of the face of the Earth" (a threat reiterated numerous times) could bring about the appearance of the Mahdi.
From a.i.:
- Shia Perspective (Twelver): Shia Muslims believe the Mahdi is Muhammad al-Mahdi, the twelfth Imam (son of Hassan al-Askari), born in the 9th century and who went into hiding (occultation). He is believed to be alive and will return to guide humanity.
- End Times Events: The appearance of the Mahdi is a major sign of the Last Days. He is expected to lead Muslims in battle and later coexist with the returned Jesus Christ to defeat the Antichrist (Dajjal).
It's possible that the Iranian regime might believe that "wiping Israel off of the face of the Earth" (a threat reiterated numerous times) could bring about the appearance of the Mahdi.
From a.i.:
- Shia Perspective (Twelver): Shia Muslims believe the Mahdi is Muhammad al-Mahdi, the twelfth Imam (son of Hassan al-Askari), born in the 9th century and who went into hiding (occultation). He is believed to be alive and will return to guide humanity.
- End Times Events: The appearance of the Mahdi is a major sign of the Last Days. He is expected to lead Muslims in battle and later coexist with the returned Jesus Christ to defeat the Antichrist (Dajjal).
Sounds like something Huckabee could get behind.