Even in the event that Iran was not in a conflict with the US, the fact that Israel had a nuke would be more than enough for the Irans to develop nukes
Why isn't Jordan developing nukes? Or Egypt? Because even though Israel has nukes, it's in a modus vivendi with them and not directly seeking conflict.
Then again, if Israel didn't have one, the fact that they would be the first to get one to establish nuclear hegemony would be enough reason.
If other countries follow Israel, maybe it wasn't a very smart thing to do after all. It's like India-Pakistan, where India's conventional military superiority has been vitiated by getting nukes, which led Pakistan to get nukes.
I disagree that Iran's proxies are not operating on behalf of Iran when they created them, supply them, fund them, and co-ordinate with them.
You think an entire sect of Shi'ite Islam in Yemen was created by Iran? This is not a serious argument. Somehow, you forget that people and groups operate in their own interests, when the subject turns to Iran?
I'm not getting upset, I'm saying that Iran is an enemy state to the US. I'm saying that the US and Iran are in direct conflict with one another, and this isn't just evil America cyber-bullying Iran.
Who said anything about 'evil America'? Iran has done plenty wrong. You have not yet mentioned the embassy hostages, probably because you are not a boomer. But your argument fails in that you point to Iran's actions as the cause of the conflict, while ignoring what the USG has done to Iran.
One of the reasons the deep-state keeps fighting with Iran is because Iran never decided to make any deals with the deep state. Iran is an active threat to US interests, not only Israel, but Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, etc. They want regional dominance.
Well, they tried several times. And maybe they would not have come through in the end, as it stands, it has been the US to sabotage a deal with Iran.
Jordan and Egypt are not developing nukes because the US and USSR didn't want competition on that front, and was very likely given guarantees that the Israelis wouldn't engage in any First Strike activities with them
Pakistan got sold nukes because India was a more dominant country and civilization, and managed to build a real country.
I never said Shia Islam was invented in Yemen by the Iranians...
Your line of argumentation did sound like 'evil America', in that not only was every conflict with Iran the Americans fault, but also every action taken in response was legitimate. Particularly the Beirut Bombing. The big reason I brought that up is that the US wasn't significantly invested in the conflict, and was operating off of international co-operation. Though we preferred the government and Christians, the whole conflict was instigated by Iran. The peacekeeping role was taken seriously, and the Marines were getting fucked over because of it. In the end, the American experience in peacekeeping operations in Lebanon and Yugoslavia were so terrible that the US ended it's Peacekeeping contributions. US troops were not allowed to be in command of any non-US military forces, and were not allowed to be commanded by non-US officers. By showing any available weakness to Iran in Lebanon, it invited an attack on them. This is because Iran considers itself to be in a permanent state of war with the US.
"Well, but maybe those Marines had it coming" (I know that's not a direct quote, but it's the implication you made) is a wild statement when you accept the context, but you admitted you refuse to accept that context and are assuming some kind of openly malicious intent by everyone involved to... well, I have no idea. Even if the US were to have gotten directly involved in the Lebanese Civil War, it would probably have done so to protect a government more interested in US interests, and protect the Christian population of the country.
Jordan and Egypt are not developing nukes because the US and USSR didn't want competition on that front, and was very likely given guarantees that the Israelis wouldn't engage in any First Strike activities with them
It seems that you agree that any Iranian drive towards a nuclear weapon is driven by security considerations, and that by tamping down tensions, the need for Iran to be a nuclear or nuclear-threshold state will also be eliminated.
Pakistan got sold nukes because India was a more dominant country and civilization, and managed to build a real country.
There would have been not as much of a need for them to get nukes if India hadn't.
I never said Shia Islam was invented in Yemen by the Iranians...
So what did you mean by that comment? Those people are already there. They weren't happy with their lot in Yemen. Iran makes use of that like USAID does. It hardly means that Iran directs everything the Houthis do. Hell, it could not get Hezbollah to fire on Israel during the 12 day war.
Your line of argumentation did sound like 'evil America', in that not only was every conflict with Iran the Americans fault, but also every action taken in response was legitimate.
Maybe it did, but all I'm trying to do is to get you to adopt a more balanced view, particularly in a time when "evil Iran" is being used to start a new war, which will destroy Europe. If you had been single-mindedly focused on all the bad stuff America had done, then I might point out that this is also not the full story. I do think that on balance, America has done way worse things to Iran than vice versa.
Particularly the Beirut Bombing. The big reason I brought that up is that the US wasn't significantly invested in the conflict, and was operating off of international co-operation. Though we preferred the government and Christians, the whole conflict was instigated by Iran.
The civil war in Lebanon began before the revolution in Iran.
This is because Iran considers itself to be in a permanent state of war with the US.
Even if true: any reason why?
"Well, but maybe those Marines had it coming" (I know that's not a direct quote, but it's the implication you made) is a wild statement when you accept the context,
I appreciate that. To be clear, the point isn't that I glory in those Marines dying. Or any. Or any soldiers. Not American, not Israeli, not Russian, not Ukrainian. It's just that the people who order them around brought them in a place where they had no business being at all. This is all the more applicable with the insuregency that Iran allegedly backed (even though the major insurgency was Sunni). It's as if China invaded Mexico and Canada, and then complained about the US backing anti-Chinese groups that blew up Chinese.
but you admitted you refuse to accept that context and are assuming some kind of openly malicious intent by everyone involved to...
Not malicious. Just self-interested. I definitely don't buy the idea that great or even minor powers are in it to help.
Even if the US were to have gotten directly involved in the Lebanese Civil War, it would probably have done so to protect a government more interested in US interests, and protect the Christian population of the country.
Frankly, I have not much confidence in the US protecting any Christian anywhere, though they may do it if it's in their interests - for the same reason Israel allied with the Falangists.
Why isn't Jordan developing nukes? Or Egypt? Because even though Israel has nukes, it's in a modus vivendi with them and not directly seeking conflict.
If other countries follow Israel, maybe it wasn't a very smart thing to do after all. It's like India-Pakistan, where India's conventional military superiority has been vitiated by getting nukes, which led Pakistan to get nukes.
You think an entire sect of Shi'ite Islam in Yemen was created by Iran? This is not a serious argument. Somehow, you forget that people and groups operate in their own interests, when the subject turns to Iran?
Who said anything about 'evil America'? Iran has done plenty wrong. You have not yet mentioned the embassy hostages, probably because you are not a boomer. But your argument fails in that you point to Iran's actions as the cause of the conflict, while ignoring what the USG has done to Iran.
Well, they tried several times. And maybe they would not have come through in the end, as it stands, it has been the US to sabotage a deal with Iran.
Jordan and Egypt are not developing nukes because the US and USSR didn't want competition on that front, and was very likely given guarantees that the Israelis wouldn't engage in any First Strike activities with them
Pakistan got sold nukes because India was a more dominant country and civilization, and managed to build a real country.
I never said Shia Islam was invented in Yemen by the Iranians...
Your line of argumentation did sound like 'evil America', in that not only was every conflict with Iran the Americans fault, but also every action taken in response was legitimate. Particularly the Beirut Bombing. The big reason I brought that up is that the US wasn't significantly invested in the conflict, and was operating off of international co-operation. Though we preferred the government and Christians, the whole conflict was instigated by Iran. The peacekeeping role was taken seriously, and the Marines were getting fucked over because of it. In the end, the American experience in peacekeeping operations in Lebanon and Yugoslavia were so terrible that the US ended it's Peacekeeping contributions. US troops were not allowed to be in command of any non-US military forces, and were not allowed to be commanded by non-US officers. By showing any available weakness to Iran in Lebanon, it invited an attack on them. This is because Iran considers itself to be in a permanent state of war with the US.
"Well, but maybe those Marines had it coming" (I know that's not a direct quote, but it's the implication you made) is a wild statement when you accept the context, but you admitted you refuse to accept that context and are assuming some kind of openly malicious intent by everyone involved to... well, I have no idea. Even if the US were to have gotten directly involved in the Lebanese Civil War, it would probably have done so to protect a government more interested in US interests, and protect the Christian population of the country.
It seems that you agree that any Iranian drive towards a nuclear weapon is driven by security considerations, and that by tamping down tensions, the need for Iran to be a nuclear or nuclear-threshold state will also be eliminated.
There would have been not as much of a need for them to get nukes if India hadn't.
So what did you mean by that comment? Those people are already there. They weren't happy with their lot in Yemen. Iran makes use of that like USAID does. It hardly means that Iran directs everything the Houthis do. Hell, it could not get Hezbollah to fire on Israel during the 12 day war.
Maybe it did, but all I'm trying to do is to get you to adopt a more balanced view, particularly in a time when "evil Iran" is being used to start a new war, which will destroy Europe. If you had been single-mindedly focused on all the bad stuff America had done, then I might point out that this is also not the full story. I do think that on balance, America has done way worse things to Iran than vice versa.
The civil war in Lebanon began before the revolution in Iran.
Even if true: any reason why?
I appreciate that. To be clear, the point isn't that I glory in those Marines dying. Or any. Or any soldiers. Not American, not Israeli, not Russian, not Ukrainian. It's just that the people who order them around brought them in a place where they had no business being at all. This is all the more applicable with the insuregency that Iran allegedly backed (even though the major insurgency was Sunni). It's as if China invaded Mexico and Canada, and then complained about the US backing anti-Chinese groups that blew up Chinese.
Not malicious. Just self-interested. I definitely don't buy the idea that great or even minor powers are in it to help.
Frankly, I have not much confidence in the US protecting any Christian anywhere, though they may do it if it's in their interests - for the same reason Israel allied with the Falangists.