There has been talk in the media about regime change in Iran. This seems premature.
I would not be surprised if the hard-line religious leadership in Iran remained even if there was widespread war damage. I doubt that their power really lies in the nuclear programme.
I wonder if anyone in the US or Israeli leadership is pondering about previous Western attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya? I suppose the heady fumes of victory make this unlikely, but maybe citizens of said countries might have a thought about it.
Welp. America has a plan for striking Iran, it's approved, and Trump is just waiting to see how the global markets respond to the announcement before hitting the go button.
Never forget that Netanyahu is playing a very personal, very long game to avoid prosecution in his own country. Endless warring is a perfect solution for him. And fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals in the US are all too happy for whatever realization of Armageddon he is able to bring to the table.
Welp. America has a plan for striking Iran, it's approved, and Trump is just waiting to see how the global markets respond to the announcement before hitting the go button.
AFF
FWIW, the UK Guardian reports that Trump denies this:
A fluid situation, obviously, so Trump may well change what passes for his mind.
Seven minutes ago Caroline Leavitt confirmed that Trump is waiting out the results of any possible negotiations for the next two weeks.
It really sucks that Israel interrupted the talks that were supposed to take place on Sunday. Iran was going to agree to a deal where it would keep its enriched uranium up to something like 3.5% for energy purposes and hand over to Russia for safe custody anything enriched above that to be released as needed for specific purposes like medical equipment manufacture and suchlike.
Everyone wanted that deal, Iran wanted it, Russia wanted it, China wanted it, most of the countries in the UN wanted it. The only people who didn't want it were America, Great Britain and Israel.
And so here we are. Two weeks away from god knows what. I'm going to pour a daiquiri and go sit on the beach. I can't believe I survived my entire family to live through this absolute shitshow of galactically proportioned stupidity. My family were the smart ones, they got out in time.
A fluid situation, obviously, so Trump may well change what passes for his mind.
Seven minutes ago Caroline Leavitt confirmed that Trump is waiting out the results of any possible negotiations for the next two weeks.
It really sucks that Israel interrupted the talks that were supposed to take place on Sunday. Iran was going to agree to a deal where it would keep its enriched uranium up to something like 3.5% for energy purposes and hand over to Russia for safe custody anything enriched above that to be released as needed for specific purposes like medical equipment manufacture and suchlike.
Everyone wanted that deal, Iran wanted it, Russia wanted it, China wanted it, most of the countries in the UN wanted it. The only people who didn't want it were America, Great Britain and Israel.
And so here we are. Two weeks away from god knows what. I'm going to pour a daiquiri and go sit on the beach. I can't believe I survived my entire family to live through this absolute shitshow of galactically proportioned stupidity. My family were the smart ones, they got out in time.
AFF
Yes, I saw that report on the Guardian website a few minutes ago.
The stupidity is indeed astounding - we're all being held to ransom, as it were, by four mad old men (Trump, Netanyahu, Khameini, and Putin). The Four Horsemen Of The Apocalypse are out of a job, it seems.
Maybe the message for Iran from this attack is that they need the nuclear weapons. The bombing of them would not have happened if they had these. Russia did not get bombed as punishment for invading and killing in Ukraine because countries are afraid of their nuclear weapons. No country bombs North Korea because they have them. If Iraq and Libya really had nuclear bombs and rockets, would they have been invaded and their president killed?
Perhaps the message is there is a crazy people in charge of North Korea, USA and Russia, and no one threatens them because they have nuclear bombs. If a country does not have the nuclear they could be destroyed by the countries that have these.
My friends talk that maybe any country that is threatened by another country with invasion needs nuclear weapons to keep the attackers away. This is bad to say, but the really badness is when a country attacks other countries and kills so many people. The people of earth are terrible I think. So many bullies.
Now Israel is crying to high heaven because one of their main hospitals has been attacked. They are calling it a war crime and calling for an Iranian regime change. There is a strong hint the Israelis might just bring that about.
Let me understand this. We have known Israel to have attacked several hospitals in Gaza, killing thousands of civilians and medical staff. And these are not war crimes?
Is it because Israel was using guided weaponry in their attacks on Gaza while the Iranian ballistic missile was just a dumb (as in not guided) weapon?
To the question what will Trump do? Anyone want to put odds on Trump not attacking Persia?
A fluid situation, obviously, so Trump may well change what passes for his mind.
Seven minutes ago Caroline Leavitt confirmed that Trump is waiting out the results of any possible negotiations for the next two weeks.
It really sucks that Israel interrupted the talks that were supposed to take place on Sunday. Iran was going to agree to a deal where it would keep its enriched uranium up to something like 3.5% for energy purposes and hand over to Russia for safe custody anything enriched above that to be released as needed for specific purposes like medical equipment manufacture and suchlike.
Everyone wanted that deal, Iran wanted it, Russia wanted it, China wanted it, most of the countries in the UN wanted it. The only people who didn't want it were America, Great Britain and Israel.
And so here we are. Two weeks away from god knows what. I'm going to pour a daiquiri and go sit on the beach. I can't believe I survived my entire family to live through this absolute shitshow of galactically proportioned stupidity. My family were the smart ones, they got out in time.
AFF
Yes, I saw that report on the Guardian website a few minutes ago.
The stupidity is indeed astounding - we're all being held to ransom, as it were, by four mad old men (Trump, Netanyahu, Khameini, and Putin).
That's a misleadingly broad brush, it's largely thanks to Khameini's fatwa against nuclear bombs that they originally stopped their weapons programme in 2003, and more recently were willing to sign up to the original deal - all indications are that they broadly stuck to it - and still willing to sign up something similar very recently
In the event Israel killed Shamkhani as they didn't like the original deal, didn't want another deal and largely profit if Iran is reduced to something like present day Libya.
This morning I was reading something that suggested there could be a US strike on Iran as early as this weekend, with heavy bombing.
If the idea is regime change, as seems plausible, that's rather a gamble. More likely to lead to another Libya-type outcome and further destabilization of the Middle East.
Trying to impose a regime change on another nation is morally dubious and historically ineffective or even disastrous. Even more so when the nation trying to impose a regime change has more than enough problems with their own regime. Those without sin should cast the first stone. Likewise, no government that has nuclear weapons, especially if they are not working towards disarming all their WMDs, has no moral high ground to stand on to demand other nations do not develop nuclear weapons.
Trying to impose a regime change on another nation is morally dubious and historically ineffective or even disastrous. Even more so when the nation trying to impose a regime change has more than enough problems with their own regime. Those without sin should cast the first stone. Likewise, no government that has nuclear weapons, especially if they are not working towards disarming all their WMDs, has no moral high ground to stand on to demand other nations do not develop nuclear weapons.
Much less the only government in the world that has ever discharged a nuclear weapon on a civilian population.
And may I say that I am deeply disturbed by the casual banter in the blogosphere and the MSM about the feasibility of hitting the Fordow nuclear facility with a nuclear weapon in light of suspicions that bunker busters may be insufficient to damage it.
The USA is engaged in the war! Trump just recently posted our planes have attacked three nuclear targets in Iran. The planes are out of Iranian airspace now. So far, no verification from other sources.
The USA is engaged in the war! Trump just recently posted our planes have attacked three nuclear targets in Iran. The planes are out of Iranian airspace now. So far, no verification from other sources.
The US government is significantly responsible for there being no deal with Iran, because in his first term Trump pulled out of the deal that was working (at least as far as Iran not progressing plans to develop nuclear weapons). If (and it's a big if) Iran has made progress towards developing nuclear weapons in the last decade then that was caused by the decision by Trump to scrap that deal (apparently only because it was a deal that had been finalised while Obama was President, and Trump wanted to destroy anything associated with Obama).
This is a hell of Trumps own making. It's another dodgy dossier. It's the US government siding with state sponsored terrorism and genocide. It's the US government siding with the aggressor, with the Israeli governments unprovoked and illegal attack on Iran - it's morally the same as if the US government in September 1939 had joined in the bombing of Warsaw.
Given the UK government’s political history - and that their response to a protest group throwing paint on a plane is to want to declare them terrorists: I wish to remind everyone of the UK’s laws on posting in support of proscribed groups.. Offences relating to this carry a jail term of up to 15 years.
Please be mindful in your posting, I am not to claiming to support some of the ways anti-terrorist legislation is being used to restrict free speech in Britain - however, we have no means to provide legal protection to you if the authorities believe you have crossed the line. We are also legally required to remove any material we believe may be illegal.
Do you not think Iran is also responsible for a bit of 'state sponsored terrorism ', Alan?
Yes, they are. Particularly against their own population - but, if we went around bombing every nation where the government is shitty to their own people we'd have to bomb everyone (including ourselves).
But, at this moment Iran does not occupy another nation. Iran isn't supporting terrorists who brutally attack and murder to drive people out of their homes to make lebensraum for settlers. Iran isn't starving a population, and then shooting starving people trying to access a trickle of supplies. Iran is not committing genocide. Iran isn't committing acts of piracy to prevent peaceful activists deliver aid or to seize plutonium for their nuclear programme*. Iran is funding and supplying various freedom fighters around the region, but they're not sending their agents around the world shooting innocent people on the streets of Sweden**.
Iran has shown itself willing to cooperate with the international community, to give up their desire to gain nuclear weapons in exchange for the security gained from being partners in trade with other nations. It wasn't Iran that pulled out of the agreement, they didn't chose to have sanctions reimposed. They were pushed back into the international pariah status and needed to look again at how they defend themselves from aggressor states in the region - which may (IMO probably not) include steps towards developing nuclear weapons (and, if defence is a good enough reason for the US, UK, Russia etc to develop nuclear weapons, it's a good enough reason for Iran if that's how they wish to defend their interests - if our governments are saying that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons for their defence then we shouldn't have nuclear weapons for our own defence).
* OK, I'll grant that one is an old story
** and, that's another old story
The only nation to have dropped nuclear weapons on civilians remains the US.
Has Farage commented yet? Because the UK joining the US and Israel in a war on Iran will go down with voters like a cup of cold sick, and surely even he realises this (although given Reform's recent burst of religiosity, possibly not - an odd overplaying of their culture war hand there).
There has been some comment in the UK media that Iran has limited options as regards a response to Trump's act of war. One of them, however, is to restrict the amount of oil passing through the Straits of Hormuz, which would inevitably affect the US economy. Whether or not Trump took that possibility into account is open to question.
For the moment, it seems, the UK is not directly involved in the war (as far as we know), but many people in this country are, nevertheless, concerned.
It seems that Israel is planning large scale bombing of Tehran. I heard the BBC report that Israeli military commanders have released maps of neighbourhoods where civilians should evacuate on their Arabic social media channels. Which says something in itself given that Iranians are mostly Persian speakers.
it.
What it says to me is that the BBC reporter doesn’t know the difference between Arabic and Persian, or hasn’t had their first coffee of the day.
When this came up, @Bullfrog suggested that perhaps Israel doesn't care that anyone knows how to evacuate.
There has been some comment in the UK media that Iran has limited options as regards a response to Trump's act of war. One of them, however, is to restrict the amount of oil passing through the Straits of Hormuz, which would inevitably affect the US economy. Whether or not Trump took that possibility into account is open to question.
For the moment, it seems, the UK is not directly involved in the war (as far as we know), but many people in this country are, nevertheless, concerned.
I certainly fervently hope that we don't become directly involved. My worry is that Starmer might see a jingoistic "are brave boys" (or indeed wanting to highlight women in the military under the guise of feminism) approach as a patriotic Blue Labour vote winner, despite the fact that the working-class areas that he wants to appeal to (very reasonably) don't want to send their young people to be cannon fodder for Trump.
Netanyahu reminds me of the man who got onto the back of a tiger, and then found he couldn't easily get off without being eaten. Not sure how Trump fits into that scenario, though I doubt if his interference makes anything any easier.
Netanyahu reminds me of the man who got onto the back of a tiger, and then found he couldn't easily get off without being eaten. Not sure how Trump fits into that scenario, though I doubt if his interference makes anything any easier.
It makes it easier to get the US to do stupid stuff that Trump thinks make him look good. Like, say, doing a little light waging of aggressive war.
Netanyahu reminds me of the man who got onto the back of a tiger, and then found he couldn't easily get off without being eaten. Not sure how Trump fits into that scenario, though I doubt if his interference makes anything any easier.
It makes it easier to get the US to do stupid stuff that Trump thinks make him look good. Like, say, doing a little light waging of aggressive war.
True enough. All those lovely, bigly, bangs - the Bigliest Bangs made by any President EVER...
What has the reaction been in the US itself? Mixed, I guess, with many folk of all political shades appalled by their President's folly.
Many politicos have been saying Israel has the right to defend itself. Well, I guess Iran has that right. No, sorry, Iran is very bad, and foregoes normal rights. This war thing is easy really!
CBC news reported that the USA says they are not at war with Iran.
This is weird. Maybe I could punch someone in the face, break their nose and when they are on the ground, kick them and break their ribs. But don't worry beat-up person, this isn't a fight, it is only a beating. And if you come back at me, I will beat you up worse and kill you and join my friend who has been killing your family. (Don't worry everybody, Burgess will never punch anyone. I don't do that.)
Maybe Iran will do a terror attack on USA, or maybe USA will do a fake terror attack on themself. This could give their president Trump more control than he has taken already. Win-win eh?
Maybe we better get nukes to defend from this crazy guy. But do it secretly like Israel did.
Well, there's no formal declaration of war. So, that's alright then ... no reason to consider it a date which will live in infamy, unlike other occasions when a nation was attacked without a formal declaration of war.
I think the latest poll I heard was that only 16% of the American public supported going to war with Iran. "America" did not say anything about going to war with Iran. JC Vance said we are not at war with Iran, we are at war with her nuclear capability.
Thing of it is, Trump informed the Republican congressional leadership of the pending attack, but he did not inform the Democratic leadership. In the past, the president informs the congressional leadership of both parties. Congress was already discussing resolutions prohibiting US involvement without their prior approval. Now, I hope they have the guts to pass a resolution prohibiting any further attacks save in defense of the American military.
Regards the Strait of Hormuz, the United States receives little oil coming through the strait, less than 7%. Most of the oil is destined for Asian markets. That is why China is so keen on bringing both sides to the table. They have the most to lose.
Many politicos have been saying Israel has the right to defend itself. Well, I guess Iran has that right. No, sorry, Iran is very bad, and foregoes normal rights. This war thing is easy really!
What do they think Israel is defending itself against? Imaginary nuclear weapons?
Plenty of countries have nuclear power plants and no nuclear weapons. If Iran wanted to build a nuclear power plant why couldn't there have been some help and collaboration with such a project and it all be out in the open, as it were?
That was, more or less, the agreement that had been reached ten years ago - Iran continues to develop peaceful applications of nuclear technology (power generation, medical and industrial applications - some of which do need enriched uranium, even to weapons grade) under IAEA supervision, with easing of sanctions (including sanctions on technology which could have nuclear applications). It was a very good deal that gave both sides almost all of what they wanted, and in particular gave Israel and the West the assurance that Iran would be doing nothing towards nuclear weapons development.
The problem was that it was signed while Obama was President of the US, and Trump decided that anything associated with Obama (even though as an international agreement it wasn't really Obama's deal, it included a lot of commitments from the EU, nations in the Middle East and beyond) must be bad and pulled the US out of the deal which then made it unworkable.
The current situation where there are questions about whether Iran is working towards developing nuclear weapons (for which the evidence is slight, and the evidence that they have made significant progress towards that end practically non-existent) is a direct result of the decision of Trump to pull out of the previous deal, which was almost certainly the best that could have been achieved.
Plenty of countries have nuclear power plants and no nuclear weapons. If Iran wanted to build a nuclear power plant why couldn't there have been some help and collaboration with such a project and it all be out in the open, as it were?
I think at least two reasons. Recent history has demonstrated that nukes, or the ability to rapidly produce them, are both a valuable insurance policy and a bargaining chip. The lessons from Ukraine, North Korea, Libya, Iraq are that the major powers will make deals then shit on you, but if you retain the ability to Fuck Shit Up then you can prevent them trying anything much to remove or control you.
The second is that the NPT is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. No-one actually wants to help their enemies get civilian nuclear technology because it provides the precursors for nuclear weapons and, even if carefully controlled, abundant material for radiological weapons (missiles with 'dirty' payloads hitting Tel Aviv would be almost as disruptive, if not as directly destructive, as a nuke).
Many politicos have been saying Israel has the right to defend itself. Well, I guess Iran has that right. No, sorry, Iran is very bad, and foregoes normal rights. This war thing is easy really!
What do they think Israel is defending itself against? Imaginary nuclear weapons?
I'm sorry, you haven't realised that Israel is always the victim, even when bombing another country. Another word for this is impunity.
The list of infamous and evil acts is long, and getting longer - which won't bother Israel, as Gaza now takes a lower place in the eyes of the world than Iran.
At the same time, one has to admit that it was Hamas who attacked Israel a while back...
Hamas certainly did attack Israel but not to the same extent that Israel is systematically trying to exterminate Palestinians.
It should also be pointed out that Palestine has one of the youngest populations on the planet. I think remembering that Palestine is mostly children provides some sobering context.
It should also be remembered that many brave Israeli citizens do regularly protest, refuse to do their mandatory military service etc - there's a whole meme about a (real) Taylor Swift fan from Israel who managed a fan account but had to go on hiatus because she was sent to prison for refusing to join the IDF.
Thanks for the reminder @Pomona - yes, there are many Israelis who are not in favour of war, unlike their egregious Prime Minister and his government...they are the aggressors.
Comments
Thanks.
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
I would not be surprised if the hard-line religious leadership in Iran remained even if there was widespread war damage. I doubt that their power really lies in the nuclear programme.
AFF
FWIW, the UK Guardian reports that Trump denies this:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/19/trump-iran-attack-plans-denial
A fluid situation, obviously, so Trump may well change what passes for his mind.
Seven minutes ago Caroline Leavitt confirmed that Trump is waiting out the results of any possible negotiations for the next two weeks.
It really sucks that Israel interrupted the talks that were supposed to take place on Sunday. Iran was going to agree to a deal where it would keep its enriched uranium up to something like 3.5% for energy purposes and hand over to Russia for safe custody anything enriched above that to be released as needed for specific purposes like medical equipment manufacture and suchlike.
Everyone wanted that deal, Iran wanted it, Russia wanted it, China wanted it, most of the countries in the UN wanted it. The only people who didn't want it were America, Great Britain and Israel.
And so here we are. Two weeks away from god knows what. I'm going to pour a daiquiri and go sit on the beach. I can't believe I survived my entire family to live through this absolute shitshow of galactically proportioned stupidity. My family were the smart ones, they got out in time.
AFF
Yes, I saw that report on the Guardian website a few minutes ago.
The stupidity is indeed astounding - we're all being held to ransom, as it were, by four mad old men (Trump, Netanyahu, Khameini, and Putin). The Four Horsemen Of The Apocalypse are out of a job, it seems.
Perhaps the message is there is a crazy people in charge of North Korea, USA and Russia, and no one threatens them because they have nuclear bombs. If a country does not have the nuclear they could be destroyed by the countries that have these.
My friends talk that maybe any country that is threatened by another country with invasion needs nuclear weapons to keep the attackers away. This is bad to say, but the really badness is when a country attacks other countries and kills so many people. The people of earth are terrible I think. So many bullies.
Let me understand this. We have known Israel to have attacked several hospitals in Gaza, killing thousands of civilians and medical staff. And these are not war crimes?
Is it because Israel was using guided weaponry in their attacks on Gaza while the Iranian ballistic missile was just a dumb (as in not guided) weapon?
To the question what will Trump do? Anyone want to put odds on Trump not attacking Persia?
That's a misleadingly broad brush, it's largely thanks to Khameini's fatwa against nuclear bombs that they originally stopped their weapons programme in 2003, and more recently were willing to sign up to the original deal - all indications are that they broadly stuck to it - and still willing to sign up something similar very recently
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/iran-enriched-uranium-nuclear-deal-trump-rcna206833
In the event Israel killed Shamkhani as they didn't like the original deal, didn't want another deal and largely profit if Iran is reduced to something like present day Libya.
If the idea is regime change, as seems plausible, that's rather a gamble. More likely to lead to another Libya-type outcome and further destabilization of the Middle East.
Much less the only government in the world that has ever discharged a nuclear weapon on a civilian population.
And may I say that I am deeply disturbed by the casual banter in the blogosphere and the MSM about the feasibility of hitting the Fordow nuclear facility with a nuclear weapon in light of suspicions that bunker busters may be insufficient to damage it.
AFF
Oh no here go hell come.
AFF
This is a hell of Trumps own making. It's another dodgy dossier. It's the US government siding with state sponsored terrorism and genocide. It's the US government siding with the aggressor, with the Israeli governments unprovoked and illegal attack on Iran - it's morally the same as if the US government in September 1939 had joined in the bombing of Warsaw.
Please be mindful in your posting, I am not to claiming to support some of the ways anti-terrorist legislation is being used to restrict free speech in Britain - however, we have no means to provide legal protection to you if the authorities believe you have crossed the line. We are also legally required to remove any material we believe may be illegal.
Doublethink, Admin
But, at this moment Iran does not occupy another nation. Iran isn't supporting terrorists who brutally attack and murder to drive people out of their homes to make lebensraum for settlers. Iran isn't starving a population, and then shooting starving people trying to access a trickle of supplies. Iran is not committing genocide. Iran isn't committing acts of piracy to prevent peaceful activists deliver aid or to seize plutonium for their nuclear programme*. Iran is funding and supplying various freedom fighters around the region, but they're not sending their agents around the world shooting innocent people on the streets of Sweden**.
Iran has shown itself willing to cooperate with the international community, to give up their desire to gain nuclear weapons in exchange for the security gained from being partners in trade with other nations. It wasn't Iran that pulled out of the agreement, they didn't chose to have sanctions reimposed. They were pushed back into the international pariah status and needed to look again at how they defend themselves from aggressor states in the region - which may (IMO probably not) include steps towards developing nuclear weapons (and, if defence is a good enough reason for the US, UK, Russia etc to develop nuclear weapons, it's a good enough reason for Iran if that's how they wish to defend their interests - if our governments are saying that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons for their defence then we shouldn't have nuclear weapons for our own defence).
* OK, I'll grant that one is an old story
** and, that's another old story
Has Farage commented yet? Because the UK joining the US and Israel in a war on Iran will go down with voters like a cup of cold sick, and surely even he realises this (although given Reform's recent burst of religiosity, possibly not - an odd overplaying of their culture war hand there).
For the moment, it seems, the UK is not directly involved in the war (as far as we know), but many people in this country are, nevertheless, concerned.
When this came up, @Bullfrog suggested that perhaps Israel doesn't care that anyone knows how to evacuate.
I certainly fervently hope that we don't become directly involved. My worry is that Starmer might see a jingoistic "are brave boys" (or indeed wanting to highlight women in the military under the guise of feminism) approach as a patriotic Blue Labour vote winner, despite the fact that the working-class areas that he wants to appeal to (very reasonably) don't want to send their young people to be cannon fodder for Trump.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/22/donald-trump-usa-iran-israel-war-bombing
It makes it easier to get the US to do stupid stuff that Trump thinks make him look good. Like, say, doing a little light waging of aggressive war.
True enough. All those lovely, bigly, bangs - the Bigliest Bangs made by any President EVER...
What has the reaction been in the US itself? Mixed, I guess, with many folk of all political shades appalled by their President's folly.
This is weird. Maybe I could punch someone in the face, break their nose and when they are on the ground, kick them and break their ribs. But don't worry beat-up person, this isn't a fight, it is only a beating. And if you come back at me, I will beat you up worse and kill you and join my friend who has been killing your family. (Don't worry everybody, Burgess will never punch anyone. I don't do that.)
Maybe Iran will do a terror attack on USA, or maybe USA will do a fake terror attack on themself. This could give their president Trump more control than he has taken already. Win-win eh?
Maybe we better get nukes to defend from this crazy guy. But do it secretly like Israel did.
Thing of it is, Trump informed the Republican congressional leadership of the pending attack, but he did not inform the Democratic leadership. In the past, the president informs the congressional leadership of both parties. Congress was already discussing resolutions prohibiting US involvement without their prior approval. Now, I hope they have the guts to pass a resolution prohibiting any further attacks save in defense of the American military.
Regards the Strait of Hormuz, the United States receives little oil coming through the strait, less than 7%. Most of the oil is destined for Asian markets. That is why China is so keen on bringing both sides to the table. They have the most to lose.
What do they think Israel is defending itself against? Imaginary nuclear weapons?
The problem was that it was signed while Obama was President of the US, and Trump decided that anything associated with Obama (even though as an international agreement it wasn't really Obama's deal, it included a lot of commitments from the EU, nations in the Middle East and beyond) must be bad and pulled the US out of the deal which then made it unworkable.
The current situation where there are questions about whether Iran is working towards developing nuclear weapons (for which the evidence is slight, and the evidence that they have made significant progress towards that end practically non-existent) is a direct result of the decision of Trump to pull out of the previous deal, which was almost certainly the best that could have been achieved.
I think at least two reasons. Recent history has demonstrated that nukes, or the ability to rapidly produce them, are both a valuable insurance policy and a bargaining chip. The lessons from Ukraine, North Korea, Libya, Iraq are that the major powers will make deals then shit on you, but if you retain the ability to Fuck Shit Up then you can prevent them trying anything much to remove or control you.
The second is that the NPT is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. No-one actually wants to help their enemies get civilian nuclear technology because it provides the precursors for nuclear weapons and, even if carefully controlled, abundant material for radiological weapons (missiles with 'dirty' payloads hitting Tel Aviv would be almost as disruptive, if not as directly destructive, as a nuke).
I'm sorry, you haven't realised that Israel is always the victim, even when bombing another country. Another word for this is impunity.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2025/jun/23/world-war-3-whose-idea-was-that
At the same time, one has to admit that it was Hamas who attacked Israel a while back...
Hamas certainly did attack Israel but not to the same extent that Israel is systematically trying to exterminate Palestinians.
It should also be pointed out that Palestine has one of the youngest populations on the planet. I think remembering that Palestine is mostly children provides some sobering context.
It should also be remembered that many brave Israeli citizens do regularly protest, refuse to do their mandatory military service etc - there's a whole meme about a (real) Taylor Swift fan from Israel who managed a fan account but had to go on hiatus because she was sent to prison for refusing to join the IDF.