According to the White House, the Iranian nuclear weapons program was totally destroyed 8 months ago. And in under 8 months, the Iranians were able to reboot it and make enough progress that it was an imminent threat again.
(More to my point, "accelerate" does not imply any given velocity. It means move it fast-er. Notably, one must accelerate from a complete stop to move at all.)
Every state that feels threatened must see acquisition of nuclear weapons (or acquiring a nuclear-armed protector) as Job #1. Maybe they buy using the new windfall from the toll on the Strait, maybe they use their own know-how. Maybe a combination.
But yeah, every leader needs to get their country under a nuclear umbrella. Any leader who is not will be replaced for delinquency.
It's abundantly clear that we are entering an age of nuclear proliferation. Ukraine, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba are just the earliest examples. Entirely possible US didn't invade Greenland due to its nuclear protection. Would Israel be cleansing (ethnically) large swathes of Lebanon if there was a risk they could lose Tel Aviv this afternoon? But now it is clear that we are (again) in a geopolitical environment in which the strongest can take whatever they want from the weak. Demonstrated nuclear capability is the only clear deterrent.
> Maybe they buy using the new windfall from the toll on the Strait, maybe they use their own know-how. Maybe a combination.
Just to be clear, there won't be any tolls on the Straight. If I had a way to make you put up money on this 1-1 I would, but unfortunately I don't. US won't tolerate it, Gulf States won't tolerate it, nor should the rest of the world tolerate being extorted. Same thing with Putin - can't live under a threat of nuclear bombing of London all the time and cower in fear at these awful regimes. Also, obviously, showing the need for the US to stop Iran from having a nuclear bomb.
> It's abundantly clear that we are entering an age of nuclear proliferation. Ukraine, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba are just the earliest examples.
Ukraine is the outlier here as the only peaceful country not run by lunatics who are starving and depriving their people of freedom, so let's set that aside.
Venezuela - over 8 million refugees, total economic collapse, all under Chavez and Maduro who enriched themselves and their henchmen at the cost of the people of Venezuela.
Iran - killed 30,000 of its own people (confirmed by the US and EU), is currently recruiting child soldiers, funds terrorist groups (all designated as such by the US and EU) such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthis to launch rockets and missiles at people just living their daily lives.
Cuba - A little less straightforward, admittedly, given the history but at the end of the day was working with Venezuela's government to oppress its people and plays nice with Russia who invaded Ukraine.
Nah, none of these countries should have nuclear weapons. As an aside w.r.t Ukraine I'm generally against more countries obtaining nukes, though I guess the good news is we can bomb the ones we don't want to have nukes and let the good ones we do want to have nukes get them like Japan and South Korea so they can blow up China and North Korea if they start shit. But maybe we should get more countries to have nukes. Argentina for example since they've been super cooperative - let's put them under the umbrella and give them nukes. Hmm who else. Taiwan? Yea that would be good. Oh oh and the Baltics and Ukraine if we did give them nukes that could end the war and put Russia in its place right? Oh and since Iran wanted to get a nuke, it's only fair that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait, Iraq all get nukes too, right? You know what, Trump is a big fan of the AfD in Germany. Maybe they should carve out some territory they like and we'll give them a nuke so that way Berlin leaves them alone. Why not? Anyone that feels threatened is entitled to a nuclear weapon.
Do you see how stupid and quickly escalatory this is? That's why folks are in favor of nuclear non-proliferation.
> Entirely possible US didn't invade Greenland due to its nuclear protection.
I think mostly because Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate pushed back on this. Europe isn't going to nuke the United States over Greenland - that's complete nonsense and wouldn't accomplish anything.
> Would Israel be cleansing (ethnically) large swathes of Lebanon if there was a risk they could lose Tel Aviv this afternoon?
Israel has nukes right? So next time Hezbollah launches rockets at Israel from southern Lebanon - boom Beirut up in smokes. Just. Like. That.
> Just to be clear, there won't be any tolls on the Straight
Not going to debate this, since you seem to know more than the people negotiating this. I can only go by what negotiators (you?) have publicly released through official channels, which is that Iran and Oman will get a windfall at the expense of free maritime navigation.
> Do you see how stupid and quickly escalatory this is?
Yes? To be clear, I am against nuclear non-proliferation. I also understand that internal politics will lean towards populations not being terrorized by their neighbors. I understand that non-proliferation depends on nuclear powers acting responsibly and underwriting a semblance of a security regime. The best course of action would be for the big nuclear powers to act in ways aligned with long-term peace and nonproliferation.
But they are very much doing the opposite. The big nuclear powers are engaging in piracy and seeking to redivide the globe. In those circumstances, it would be folly for countries not to get their own deterrent.
> boom Beirut up in smokes
Yes, look at videos of Beirut today. That is exactly what is happening.
> I can only go by what negotiators (you?) have publicly released through official channels, which is that Iran and Oman will get a windfall at the expense of free maritime navigation.
You don't have to be a negotiator to understand this stuff. Oman hosts a US air base - how are they going to charge another US ally like Saudi Arabia (for ex) for shipping oil if the US says no you're not - and we have said that. This is even crazier than suggesting Iran gets to do it.
Can you please post your specific sources informing you of these things that you believe? I'd like to also read them to better understand what others are thinking. Like where are you reading - the exact article - that the US and Gulf States agreed to pay a fee to Iran and Oman to have ships transit the straight. Who signed off on that agreement for the US for example? It should be in the article.
> Yes, look at videos of Beirut today. That is exactly what is happening.
Israel dropped a nuclear bomb on Beirut today? Jeez. That's unfortunate. But hey, countries need to have nukes to defend themselves and if Hezbollah isn't going to stop, boom straight to the big stuff because that's how the world works.
shows the US agreeing to acceptance of the Iranian 10-point plan as a basis for negotiation. You can find those 10 points from a source you trust, but they include reparations to Iran in the form of payments from ships transiting the Strait.
> Oman hosts a US air base
The 10-point plan also requires the US to remove its combat forces from the region.
> Who signed off on that agreement for the US for example
The President posted this, so it's likely the most official artifact available to the public. Likely nothing is signed yet, it appears the President did not even get Israel onside before announcing so the ceasefire may not make it to the weekend.
wrt Beirut. I don't know how to convey that Israel is only operating the way they are in Lebanon because they do not feel the existential threat that comes with a nuclear deterrent. I'm not really sure I understand your position that nuclear weapons do not deter.
So you know from reading those 10 points that the US isn't going to agree to them. That Iran posited them and the US says sure we can start with this as a basis for negotiation does not mean that the US agreed to Iran's demands any more than it means Iran agreed to the US's 15 point plan.
It's ok to just admit you were wrong.
> I don't know how to convey that Israel is only operating the way they are in Lebanon because they do not feel the existential threat that comes with a nuclear deterrent.
If Lebanon had a nuclear weapon they'd probably use it on Hezbollah so they can reassert control over their territory and stop those maniacs from trying to start wars.
> I'm not really sure I understand your position that nuclear weapons do not deter.
Israel has nuclear weapons yet Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran have not been deterred from attacking Israel. Countries don't just launch nukes the second they feel they are under threat.
> I can only go by what negotiators (you?) have publicly released through official channels, which is that Iran and Oman will get a windfall at the expense of free maritime navigation.
Which negotiators from official channels have stated this?
I'm of course arguing that this won't happen for a variety of reasons, but I'm also arguing that nobody on the US and friends side has agreed to this at all, and Oman from what reporting I have is against it as well though you've suggested they would get a windfall.
You're not going to believe any citation I provide. I would suggest a meta-process instead. Go to the President's official feed on his website. Look at his statements about the ceasefire. Ask honestly whether any of these would inject more money into Iran's economy. In the case of the 10-point proposal, you will have to look elsewhere to find a source you trust to outline the 10 points. Ask whether any of those points, which the President cited as a basis for an agreement, will inject money into the Iranian economy.
And keep in mind that no agreement, apparently not even the ceasefire, have been signed. So this is all armchair analysis from all sides (except you, because you apparently already know).
In any case, it's not clear the cease fire will make it to the weekend so we will all (except you, who have the benefit of already knowing) have to sit tight to find out what happens.
Now you're changing the subject from Iran will charge ships to use the Straight and the US will agree to it, to "Iran will receive some sort of economic benefit". You even said Oman would be part of this scheme and are incapable of providing a source, yet I provided one stating the opposite.
Of course if Iran's government stopped being so fucking crazy the US would be happy to provide economic aid. The US even offered nuclear power to Iran for free, which they turned down. [1]
I'm not believing any citation you provide because you haven't provided any. You looked at Iran's plan (which doesn't matter) and then decided that somehow they had the leverage and the US and Gulf States would agree and have but no choice to pay Iran shipping fees. This is incorrect. Nothing was agreed to. Iran's proposal is mostly worthless, and you're making stuff up.
As part of that effort, Washington offered to support a civilian nuclear program for Iran, *including a proposal to supply nuclear fuel free of charge on a long-term basis*.
Of course Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, etc. shouldn't have nukes, i.e. it would be bad for global stability if they got them. But that's not what the comment you replied to was claiming -- they were claiming that it's in their interest to get nukes, and that there's a good chance they'll try to do so.
There's no chance Venezuela or Cuba will try and get nuclear weapons. They lack not only the capabilities to do so, nor the finances, and the US would destroy any attempt very quickly. It's a different ball game in the western hemisphere.
The OP is in favor of nuclear proliferation and they're asserting a moralistic argument that since the US is big bad guy that its in the interest of these other countries to get nuclear weapons to prevent big bad guy from stopping them from doing things like murdering their own people or using their domestic oil industry to enrich themselves and their henchmen.
But the US isn't big bad guy. It's acting in the interests of everyone including the people in those countries suffering under the direct actions of those regimes that run them. It's a common tactic of dictatorships, autocracies, fascists, communists, &c. to blame internal problems on external factors "colonialism", "great satan" to shield them from blame for these problems that they cause. We know this is true not just because it's just simply true, but because others continually accuse the Trump Administration of doing the same and being a fascist regime - he's just borrowing their tactics. Thankfully America is more resilient than that, but it's certainly concerning.
(More to my point, "accelerate" does not imply any given velocity. It means move it fast-er. Notably, one must accelerate from a complete stop to move at all.)
Every state that feels threatened must see acquisition of nuclear weapons (or acquiring a nuclear-armed protector) as Job #1. Maybe they buy using the new windfall from the toll on the Strait, maybe they use their own know-how. Maybe a combination.
But yeah, every leader needs to get their country under a nuclear umbrella. Any leader who is not will be replaced for delinquency.
It's abundantly clear that we are entering an age of nuclear proliferation. Ukraine, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba are just the earliest examples. Entirely possible US didn't invade Greenland due to its nuclear protection. Would Israel be cleansing (ethnically) large swathes of Lebanon if there was a risk they could lose Tel Aviv this afternoon? But now it is clear that we are (again) in a geopolitical environment in which the strongest can take whatever they want from the weak. Demonstrated nuclear capability is the only clear deterrent.