...and how Trump tore up the agreement in favor of this gaslighting opportunism where he uses our nation's military defenses like pawns?
I mean you talk about this as if there was some solid intel on their enrichment that we could point to as proof that we need to act as precipitously as Trump has and apparently plans to again.
You're barking up the wrong tree expecting me to flinch just because they have a nuclear program. It's not even the point here. The assessment made when we had responsible people involved used to be that waging war with Iran was counterproductive to the effort to restrain them from weaponizing their program.
Trump decided that acting like a cowboy was smarter, and Iran not only hid their program from us, but it's underground, and likely mobile now that the U.S. has decided to treat Iran as if we're mobilizing to wage war against them.
All that the bullying and bluster from Trump has done is escalate any threat, and increased the likelihood Iran would act precipitously against the U.S. or, more likely, our allies in the region in response.
That threat equation isn't any different from the one that other presidents who preceded Trump have assessed and responded to with efforts short of a destabilizing war.
The question you should be asking is what evidence is there that Trump's rhetoric and actions are doing anything more than deepening Iran's resolve to weaponize it's nuclear program beyond the energy needs that they insist their nuclear program is all about?
More than that, what evidence is there that Iran's nuclear program has been hindered in any significant way by destabilizing airstrikes? It's not as if the risk-assessment of U.S. military strikes is some zero-sum enterprise that would definitely end their nuke ambitions or ability.
Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the Washington-based Arms Control Association, said that there is a risk that the stockpile "could be diverted either to a covert program or stolen by a faction of the government or the military that wanted to retain the option of weaponization."
She said that this risk increases as the Iranian government feels threatened or gets destabilized.
Some of the nuclear material could get smuggled out of Iran or sold to non-state actors in the event of internal chaos or potential government collapse, Davenport said.
"The risk is real but it is difficult to assess, given the unknowns regarding the status of the materials and the whereabouts," she stressed.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/analysts-warn-that-the-iran-crisis-carries-potential-nuclear-risks-heres-what-to-know
...the dilemma for the U.S. here is that Iran would likely opt for a military response if their entire nuclear capibility was cut off or seriously diminished. It doesn't serve this process well to just ignore that bottom line expressed by Iran in negotiations as recently as last month.
The problem with just viewing this as some security threat is that it invites a military response which appears to be a path to exacerbating the threat, not assuaging it.
You have to wonder about concern that just relies on that fear of Iran nuclear weapons, and assumes that concern makes every other fall in line with that expectation of defending ourselves militarily against what Trump is presently almost mindlessly escalating - even as his own negotiators are talking with Iran about much more than inanities like, ' (is) Iran attempting to make bombs,' or, 'do we think Iran should have nuclear weapons?'
The U.S. still hasn't cured itself of the false notion that military force can solve every perceived threat to the nation if we just bear down hard enough and blow more things up.
How's that been working out for us, so far?
= new reply since forum marked as read