The dates were meaningless. Nobody is ever going to allow this regime to have a nuke. Once the time came around, either they'd renegotiate, or we'd do what we did this year, and bomb them to hell.
While probable, you could argue that this tactic became more difficult the longer we waited. Iran was arming themselves and their regional proxies for a long time and had we chosen to do this strike a decade ago, it likely would have been a quicker and less expensive similar, or even superior, result.
If we had waited another five years, it certainly wouldn't have gotten better.
Hindsight, and all that. But at the time, 1) nobody had the appetite for another war in the region, and 2) there was a genuine feeling that any positive integration between Iran and the West would bolster the pragmatists in the Iranian regime. It's easy to say now that 2) was wishful thinking at best, but remember this was also happening the context of the fear that Iran was very close to reaching their breakout moment, and it felt like the clock was ticking. So it was an imperfect deal, which included a big gamble that unfortunately didn't pay off.
This isn’t about Iran, it’s about Islam. Iran is a theocracy. Whether Islam uses a nuke is a different question from whether Iran will use one.
Welcome back. How is the golf game and retirement? Looks like we are getting the band back together.
The dates were meaningless. Nobody is ever going to allow this regime to have a nuke. Once the time came around, either they'd renegotiate, or we'd do what we did this year, and bomb them to hell.
While probable, you could argue that this tactic became more difficult the longer we waited. Iran was arming themselves and their regional proxies for a long time and had we chosen to do this strike a decade ago, it likely would have been a quicker and less expensive similar, or even superior, result.
If we had waited another five years, it certainly wouldn't have gotten better.
Hindsight, and all that. But at the time, 1) nobody had the appetite for another war in the region, and 2) there was a genuine feeling that any positive integration between Iran and the West would bolster the pragmatists in the Iranian regime. It's easy to say now that 2) was wishful thinking at best, but remember this was also happening the context of the fear that Iran was very close to reaching their breakout moment, and it felt like the clock was ticking. So it was an imperfect deal, which included a big gamble that unfortunately didn't pay off.
I'd also add oil disruption would have been a much much larger issue 10 years ago than it is now. The reality is the Middle East is slowly becoming less relevant on the global stage when it comes to energy production each year compared to 10, 20, 30 years ago.
Sales teams cause a lot of litigation
Because we use phrases like "signal for renegotiation"
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
I don't know the answer the original question, but I do wonder if the actions Trump has taken has made it more or less likely Iran is able to build a nuclear weapon to potentially use it. If the JCPOA had remained in tact would we have been better off long term?
The JCPOA was never a long-term solution. Under the terms at the time, Iran would have eventually been back to building a nuke, anyway. The purpose of the JCPOA was just to buy time.
IIUC, there were expiration/sunset provisions built in, but those served more as signals for renegotiation than turning Iran loose.
Renegotiation? As you get closer to those dates, Iran has all of the leverage. Reasonable negotiations were never a realistic expectation.
I have to disagree. Iran stayed in compliance with JCPOA, which the Trump administration confirmed in 2018. Once Trump pulled out, they went from no enrichment, to enough for a dozen nukes in the last 8 years.
After all of this, what leverage was gained, and by whom? All we have now shown is our capability and our weakness. And are in much worse leverage position than we were 8 years ago. Complete strategic failure.
Shot our wad and now look like the limp dick.
The Iranians want money. Foreign investment. And they are clearly much better at negotiating than we are.
The dates were meaningless. Nobody is ever going to allow this regime to have a nuke. Once the time came around, either they'd renegotiate, or we'd do what we did this year, and bomb them to hell.
While probable, you could argue that this tactic became more difficult the longer we waited. Iran was arming themselves and their regional proxies for a long time and had we chosen to do this strike a decade ago, it likely would have been a quicker and less expensive similar, or even superior, result.
If we had waited another five years, it certainly wouldn't have gotten better.
Hindsight, and all that. But at the time, 1) nobody had the appetite for another war in the region, and 2) there was a genuine feeling that any positive integration between Iran and the West would bolster the pragmatists in the Iranian regime. It's easy to say now that 2) was wishful thinking at best, but remember this was also happening the context of the fear that Iran was very close to reaching their breakout moment, and it felt like the clock was ticking. So it was an imperfect deal, which included a big gamble that unfortunately didn't pay off.
I'd also add oil disruption would have been a much much larger issue 10 years ago than it is now. The reality is the Middle East is slowly becoming less relevant on the global stage when it comes to energy production each year compared to 10, 20, 30 years ago.
Do you just pull shit out your ass and post it as fact?
The reality is the global market share for Mideast oil is expected to grow over the next several decades. The US shale boom isn't a sustainable production source. It'll probably peak this decade.
https://www.agbi.com/energy/2025/11/middle-east-share-of-global-oil-output-to-surge-by-2050/
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-crude-oil-output-peak-by-2027-eia-projects-2025-04-15/
To the OP question, no I don't think Iran would use a nuke. They are a regime that's bent on survival. Doing so would obviously end their survival.
But they can never have a nuke because it gives them entirely too much leverage. It would cement them in power forever, no different than North Korea. But NK is not in the middle of 30% (and going to 40%) of the world's oil production. And God forbid people even crazier than the current regime (which is totalitarian and brutal, but not suicidal) were to get hands on them.
Trump spent a lot of time worried about Israel over the last many years. The sanctions and pulling out of JCPOA was all about weakening Iran's capacity to influence the region. Not about nukes.
There's a big dichotomy between what is important for Israel and what's important for the rest of the globe. You're seeing that play out now.
The dates were meaningless. Nobody is ever going to allow this regime to have a nuke. Once the time came around, either they'd renegotiate, or we'd do what we did this year, and bomb them to hell.
While probable, you could argue that this tactic became more difficult the longer we waited. Iran was arming themselves and their regional proxies for a long time and had we chosen to do this strike a decade ago, it likely would have been a quicker and less expensive similar, or even superior, result.
If we had waited another five years, it certainly wouldn't have gotten better.
Hindsight, and all that. But at the time, 1) nobody had the appetite for another war in the region, and 2) there was a genuine feeling that any positive integration between Iran and the West would bolster the pragmatists in the Iranian regime. It's easy to say now that 2) was wishful thinking at best, but remember this was also happening the context of the fear that Iran was very close to reaching their breakout moment, and it felt like the clock was ticking. So it was an imperfect deal, which included a big gamble that unfortunately didn't pay off.
I'd also add oil disruption would have been a much much larger issue 10 years ago than it is now. The reality is the Middle East is slowly becoming less relevant on the global stage when it comes to energy production each year compared to 10, 20, 30 years ago.
Do you just pull shit out your ass and post it as fact?
The reality is the global market share for Mideast oil is expected to grow over the next several decades. The US shale boom isn't a sustainable production source. It'll probably peak this decade.
https://www.agbi.com/energy/2025/11/middle-east-share-of-global-oil-output-to-surge-by-2050/
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-crude-oil-output-peak-by-2027-eia-projects-2025-04-15/
We are less dependent on Middle East oil today than decades ago. Someone making a prediction about what might happen in 2050 isn't a fact.
@snarlcakes you stated that the world is becoming less dependent upon Mideast oil every year. There is no projection looking forward that shows anything like that, which I've seen. If you have one, please share.
Our own govt says that US production is at about its own peak, should level off and then decrease into the next decade.
@snarlcakes you stated that the world is becoming less dependent upon Mideast oil every year. There is no projection looking forward that shows anything like that, which I've seen. If you have one, please share.
Our own govt says that US production is at about its own peak, should level off and then decrease into the next decade.
The context was it would have been much more difficult to attack Iran in the past because it would have disrupted energy markets more than it did now. And I said the Middle East has become less relevant each year compared to 10,20,30 years ago when it comes to energy production Which part do you disagree with?
Once again, I can't disprove something that hasn't happened. If you think ME is going to produce an increasing share of energy production globally moving forward, so be it. I don't think that will be the case.
@snarlcakes nobody knows what things look like decades ahead. Best we can do is utilize the information available. Mideast is still 50% of the world's proven oil reserves. Maybe you can get Venezuela cooking, but that's a big challenge still.
The good news is, there seems to be a bit of a resurgence in nuclear coming. GE just sold three small scale nuclear reactors for southern Ohio. That (and others) will help in reducing at least OUR dependence on ME oil. Getting someone back in the white house who doesn't have bug up his rear about renewables (wind / solar) will also help.
In support of Snarl here, our percentage of energy from renewables has increased from about 10% to 20% in the last 15 years. Despite what you think about renewables, it is ALWAYS a good thing to become less dependent on ME oil, and renewables has helped do that a bit. While there are certainly limits to what renewables can do, that number can still climb into the 30% level pretty easily. Between that and a renewal of investment in nuclear, there is a chance we can make Iran even more irrelevant in the future.
Wouldn't the fact that we will be more dependent on Middle East oil in the future militate in favor of regime change in Iran?To the OP question, no I don't think Iran would use a nuke. They are a regime that's bent on survival. Doing so would obviously end their survival.
But they can never have a nuke because it gives them entirely too much leverage. It would cement them in power forever, no different than North Korea. But NK is not in the middle of 30% (and going to 40%) of the world's oil production. And God forbid people even crazier than the current regime (which is totalitarian and brutal, but not suicidal) were to get hands on them.
Trump spent a lot of time worried about Israel over the last many years. The sanctions and pulling out of JCPOA was all about weakening Iran's capacity to influence the region. Not about nukes.
There's a big dichotomy between what is important for Israel and what's important for the rest of the globe. You're seeing that play out now.
Seems to me our long-term goal should be to Westernize the Middle East as much as possible. Doubt it would work, but we should be bombarding them with baseball, apple pie, and California girls (OK, maybe now SEC girls) and ridding them of the global scourge of soccer and burqas.
Once they show willingness, we'll introduce them to