You should know this because one of the reasons Trump’s been trying to use to justify this war is that Iran never said they wouldn’t pursue nuclear weapons.

You could say the fatwa is just talk but there’s a strategic argument for Iran to not get nuclear weapons besides the moral case. Iran doesn’t want to get nukes and become a pariah state like North Korea and cut itself off from global trade, they’re a Petro state they need trade. At the same time they don’t want Israel and the US to be able to bomb them with impunity. So their best strategy is to remain close to building a bomb, that way they can get sanctions relief while being able to dash for a bomb and nuclear deterrence in the case of a war.

  • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    Hmmh. I’ve heard the argument before, that they’re better off almost having nuclear weapons. But it that really the case? I mean North Korea is kind of an outliar. Lots of other countries have nuclear weapons as well, France, China… and none of them is a pariah. So I’m not sure if that’s even true. Usually more weapons is more better. Or so they say.

    Edit: But we’re arguing logic here. And oftentimes politics isn’t as straightforward. I mean I don’t think we know the truth anyway. It’s completely unclear to me as an average citizen if they were close to nukes, if that’s even the biggest issue and reason for this. For all I know everyone could be lying or framing things, including following more than one motive.

    • Mugita Sokio@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Nukes, I think, are not the reason for this ruthless attack. I just talked about the Ayatollah not wanting to have a Rothschild-run central bank (though the Jesuits run them through the Rothschild family).

      Just like with WMDs, which was found to be Hussein not wanting to be enslaved by a Jesuit financial sector.

      • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        I strongly doubt this war is about who’s on the board of some state owned financial institute. I mean even if that conspiracy were true, where’s the bombing of like 120 other countries out of the roughly 195 we have on the planet?

        • Mugita Sokio@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          From what I was reading, only 172 can be safe in this world government structure. Another 21 have got to go (and it looks like Iran might be one of those 21 countries outside of that infrastructure).

          • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            I watched too much Star Trek when I was young. I think 195 have to go. All humans should unite and reach for the stars, instead of some stupid in-fighting, killing each other, and burning down of wealth because of bigotry.

            (Edit: I live in a big melting pot. I have enough people from Syria, Iran… and “white” people around me. And I can tell you, we all have the same goals in life, we enjoy similar things, are family fathers who all want to see their kids prosper, fight the same struggles in our lives… There’s zero reason to focus on destruction and small-mindedness. We should do better. And invest the same energy into useful things. That goes for the average people. Not the ruling class. Those -of course- are motivated to disunite and stay in business.)