· 158 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Mar 29, 2026 at 3:19 AM

As war rages, Iranian politicians push for exit from nuclear weapons treaty

Posted by Hiraeth-nomad


As war rages, Iranian politicians push for exit from nuclear weapons treaty
Al Jazeera
As war rages, Iranian politicians push for exit from nuclear weapons treaty
While US-Israeli attacks hit key infrastructure, hardliners demand withdrawal from Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

🚩 Report this post

158 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
NomadFH Mar 29, 2026 +460
When trump pulled out of the iran deal, it made fools out of every non-hardliner in Iran. You look like an absolute moron trusting anything written on paper now
460
deedsnance Mar 29, 2026 +204
I mean, large super powers make it increasingly clear that your sovereignty won't be respected unless you have nuclear weapons. See: Russian & Ukraine, US & Iran
204
AristodemusMessalla Mar 29, 2026 +78
I saw some political analysts saying the same thing as soon as the US-Israel war started, citing how North Korea is the only country not having to fear
78
EmbarrassedW33B Mar 29, 2026 +16
North Korea is under China's protection regardless, so even without nukes they'd be fine. They also perpetually have a gun (well, thousands of very big ones) pointed at S. Korea's "head". There's no world where even Trump would be dumb enough to try and start attacking North Korea, even the biggest of idiots don't want anything to do with that whole situation.
16
HuslWusl Mar 29, 2026 +47
Through decades of my own experience, I can tell you: Never say stuff like "even X isn't dumb enough" or "you can't be dumber than that" because it'll be like a challenge to the universe which it'll win every time to prove you wrong.
47
grey_hat_uk Mar 29, 2026 +13
China's protection is flimsy, if they can see a way not to get involved then they won't. They will block unification but they don't care about the current leadership. Hell if they thought they could get their guy in charge they might join un a US lead coup.
13
Paaskonijn Mar 29, 2026 +6
That's not true at all. We know for a fact China is heavily invested in keeping buffer states at their borders. Are you not familiar with history?
6
grey_hat_uk Mar 29, 2026 +3
Yes, that's why they would be against unification. What they don't care about is the current leadership and getting involved in forever wars except by proxy. If NK had no nukes and the US went in hard they would be very unlikely to officially declare war against the US but would be more than willing to jump in as a diplomat and make sure a more freindly NK government was implemented. Even a democracy would be fine as we've seen what can happen to Hong Kong.
3
Paaskonijn Mar 29, 2026 +3
Sorry, but it is exceptionally naive to presume China would work together with the US to install a new government on their border. Also the current strategy is to prop up North Korean dictatorship. That's why they send NK refugees (defectors) back to North Korea. They prefer to keep the status quo. After all, a war would mean a lot more refugees they don't want.
3
grey_hat_uk Mar 29, 2026 +1
They don't want the refugees and the status quo is acceptable so they won't interfere, this is what would happen if the USA invaded NK they don't have enough love for the dictators that they would take up arms against the USA but they do want to make sure it remains a buffer so assisting the USA is the best option as it gives them leverage and a reasin not to accept any war refugees.
1
KasouYuri Mar 29, 2026 -4
Are you not familiar with basic reading comprehension?
-4
Paaskonijn Mar 29, 2026 +5
"China's protection is flimsy" is such nonsense when we have 2 prime examples showing the complete opposite happening, the Korean war and Vietnam war. Embarrassing to defend that statement.
5
grey_hat_uk Mar 29, 2026 +3
On this point modern China is very different to pre 1990s China in terms of international politics. They are far more intrested in soft power and making themself irreplaceable for trade than using force to implement regime changes.
3
Paaskonijn Mar 29, 2026 -1
Huh? Why are you ignoring the takeover of Hong Kong, the looming invasion of Taiwan and the increasingly violent clashes over the South China Sea? Soft power my ass.
-1
KasouYuri Mar 29, 2026
And what happened right after the Vietnam war?
0
Temporarilynotready Mar 29, 2026 +2
Why ask questions and then block so the other person can't respond? Lmao, that's so ratty and insecure behaviour. Anyways, what happened after the Vietnam war was: China successfully defended it's interest; aka they stopped American influence from reaching their border and kept a buffer state.
2
stiny__ Mar 29, 2026 +3
Coup* Coupe is a car.
3
jefe_hook Mar 29, 2026 +1
North Korea: Nobody wants to play with us.
1
Mrrrrggggl Mar 29, 2026 +78
Iran and the world have learned from North Korea and Ukraine that the only guarantee is nuclear weapons.
78
t_25_t Mar 29, 2026 +26
Israel’s attack on Iran has single handedly started an arms race that threatens their security they keep talking about. Iran needs nukes to stay safe. Iran’s neighbours also need nukes to stay safe.
26
TheDecepticonIdeal Mar 29, 2026 +11
We’re about to enter a new era of nuclear arms proliferation.
11
t_25_t Mar 29, 2026 +7
Yup we sure are. With the Middle East now the hot bed of nuclear arms proliferation, you can guess other countries will also want to hop on the bandwagon to secure their sovereignty.
7
TheDecepticonIdeal Mar 29, 2026 +1
If Iran somehow manages to build a nuclear weapon in the near future, I expect countries like Saudi Arabia and Türkiye to start getting their own as well. We might also see countries like Germany and Poland build their own nuclear deterrent as well as the old rules-based order continues to crumble around us. And in the Indo-Pacific region, maybe South Korea and/or Japan might start thinking of getting their own nuclear weapons too.
1
Personal-Try328 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Nuclear weapons arent preventing Israel from being bombed, theyre not preventing Russia from being bombed, theyre not preventing multiple India-Pakistan conflicts. Hell they didnt prevent Israel from getting invaded in 73. Nuclear weapons don’t protect you from being bombed. They protect you only from an existential threat and even that is questionable.
1
greyestwitch Mar 29, 2026 +1
And Libya. They only gave up their nukes a couple years before they were turned from the most prosperous nation on the continent to an open air slave market.
1
Commercial-Co Mar 29, 2026 +1
Taiwan needs to restart their program
1
Personal-Try328 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Yeah because nuclear weapons clearly prevented Israel from being invaded in 73.
1
im_thatoneguy Mar 29, 2026 -1
I feel like the optimistic scenario now is that the taboo on actually using nukes goes away and a bunch of small nations nuke each other into oblivion, the world realizes that small nuclear conflicts may not trigger Armageddon but they do just absolutely annihilate your national security and we return to non proliferation.
-1
dancingfordates Mar 29, 2026 +11
Since Trump started his tariffs the rest of the world has been signing new treaties with each other .. Nobody trusts the USA anymore ....
11
MedonSirius Mar 29, 2026 +3
Everything according to plan. Agent Arengeryi
3
greyestwitch Mar 29, 2026 +1
Anyone who has studied history who still trusts the US to follow through on its treaties is a moron just generally.
1
Calcifer-Know-it-all Mar 29, 2026 -17
The reformists are as bad as their hardliners, wolf in sheep clothing.
-17
Golda_M Mar 29, 2026 -1
Why would it make hardliners, specifically, look like fools? 
-1
Practical_Caramel234 Mar 29, 2026 -32
I think making deals with Islamist nations makes a fool out of anyone trusting them. To the degree they “honor” the deal is to the degree they can get away with it. Let’s assume you’re right and this magical deal that Obama stroke was the only thing keeping the lunatics from enriching enough uranium to produce a bomb. Let’s also assume that it was thanks to this deal that moderates were able to “convince” the population that there was a peaceful way out of this because, as we know, Iran is a very democratic nation where winning the hearts of the unarmed population can actually make the difference 🙄  Then why has Iran been funding, training and inspiring terrorist organizations all around the world? It’s not a secret that Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis are funded and/or trained by Iran. It’s also no secret that Iran hasn’t moderated and has been as brutal as they’ve been allowed to be towards their own people and others. Even the Muslim states that neighbor Iran acknowledge the threat of this rogue nation and this isn’t something that just happened after Trump. Iran has been amassing an arsenal as much as it’s been able to. Why are you all morons so eager to ignore the blatant fact that Iran has never been moderate. It may be hard for y’all cynical pragmatists to believe that people can’t be ideological but after the Islamist revolution it was clear that Iran was serious about its commitment to their ideology.
-32
DrMacAndDog Mar 29, 2026 +13
It was America that broke the deal. I don’t think Iran is a great country, but you are imagining what they might have done and ignoring what the US did. Come on!
13
DillBagner Mar 29, 2026 +15
It was a nuclear deal, not a "don't fund terrorists" deal. That would be why they continued to do that despite following the nuclear deal.
15
DoctrTurkey Mar 29, 2026 +40
That’s the interesting thing about treaties. If you don’t want to follow it anymore, you just violate it. What are they going to do, bomb you?
40
Senor_vegeta Mar 29, 2026 +18
And when they are already bombing u when u are abiding by the treaty, then the treaty serves no purpose and u might as well violate it.
18
HoustonHous Mar 29, 2026 +153
Real question before yall downvote me... who is leading Iran at this point? Obviously the new guy is not calling the shots (if he is even able to), so who is? Regardless, I'm sure they'll pull out if they survive this round, no upside in complying given they'll be attacked either way.
153
Murky_Database_569 Mar 29, 2026 +188
If I had to guess, multiple IRGC officials. They wanted the former Ayatollahs son, and have decentralized power, because of attacks on leadership. From what I've read the military commanders in different regions are making a lot of decisions on their own.
188
vava2603 Mar 29, 2026 +68
yes they learned from what happened recently , venezuela etc so they totally decentralized the decision making process. So decapitation strikes are useless
68
ExRays Mar 29, 2026 +75
They have had a decentralized plan in place for way longer than that, probably for almost a decade since the first Trump administration. Their military doctrine is designed to expect high attrition while still accomplishing objectives.
75
DB-CooperOnTheBeach Mar 29, 2026 +25
They've been preparing for this since 1979
25
hiricinee Mar 29, 2026 +35
They kind of work in a way because it forces more decentralization, which in itself is a destabilizing effect. At some point you fragment things enough that the constituent groups don't agree on how to do things or stop supporting each other. In turn its been a nightmare for them from an intelligence standpoint, because decentralization you cant compartmentalize and now everyone knows everything, and the janitor at the missile factory is going to do his best to make sure it gets bombed while he's home.
35
vava2603 Mar 29, 2026 +40
well the thing is Iran is not planning any large scale invasion or attack requiring big coordination. They just need to inflict enough pain or just fear in the strait or to any landing force to win the war
40
gartstell Mar 29, 2026 +20
They have been a perfectly functional nation and state for centuries. They are not a drug cartel where a 'Kingpin strategy' would work. These groups will remain loyal to their nation in the face of indiscriminate attacks against their military, cultural, and industrial assets. Especially when their enemies have shown they don't respect negotiations even with the country's top leaders. Why would a lower-ranking official trust them enough to negotiate anything at all?
20
MiserableTennis6546 Mar 29, 2026 +1
just like China, Iran's history goes back milennia. There's pretty much always been a country called Iran. This is a little hard for westerners to understand. Their attitude is, in a way, that in a hundred and fifty years, when only historians will remember Israel and the United States, Iran will still be there.
1
TonyPuzzle Mar 29, 2026 +1
Israel's history is longer than Iran's.
1
MiserableTennis6546 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Judaism and jewish people have been around for a very long time. But the country we call Israel today is a modern invention.
1
Midnightneedsfix Mar 29, 2026 -13
what fantasy do you live in, if U.S doesnt exist there will never be a living soul on Irans territory, we have thousands of nukes across the world.
-13
MiserableTennis6546 Mar 29, 2026 +3
Nukes are purely a deterrent. Grow up.
3
Midnightneedsfix Mar 29, 2026 -10
Your saying the u.s wouldnt exist. Maybe you need to grow up out of your anti American fantasies
-10
MiserableTennis6546 Mar 29, 2026 +7
It's not my opinion. I'm describing how an Iranian would see it. It doesn't surprise me that you're too dumb to understand the difference.
7
LordMuffin1 Mar 29, 2026 -2
More then 50% of the american population are anti anerican today. Since they dont support current administration.
-2
Mission_Shopping_847 Mar 29, 2026
You just need to leave them alone for a bit at some point. If they don't have an imminent threat to rally the banners for then strategic decentralization usually blows up.
0
steelmanfallacy Mar 29, 2026 +4
So local warlords? Sounds like Afghanistan. Can’t imagine that ending poorly… /s
4
Personal-Try328 Mar 29, 2026 +1
If one weights avoiding a future where Iran doesn't acquire nuclear weapons heavily enough a failed Iranian state is preferable to the pre-war status quo.
1
lnth1 Mar 29, 2026 +8
With each decapitation the leadership’s experience and competence will go down no? Unless they just put up clueless guys (Hegseth level clueless) as decoys. But Israel would realize it in no time anyway
8
call-the-wizards Mar 29, 2026 +12
Pretty much. Distributed leadership is only ever a stop-gap measure, it's not sustainable. It's only a matter of time before one regional commander's interests collide with another guy's interests and there's internal war. So really you just decapitate until you get to people who have no idea how to actually run anything and all hate each other, and the whole thing collapses.
12
84Cressida Mar 29, 2026 -3
Almost like that’s what we are doing but Listnook as a whole doesn’t get it.
-3
call-the-wizards Mar 29, 2026 -12
Listnook as a whole is just full of irgc bots and AI (actual indonesians)
-12
Personal-Try328 Mar 29, 2026 +1
They have been yapping about their decentralized defense a decade+  Did you just make up “they learned from venezuela” for fun? Why should anyone take what you say seriously when you are obviously clueless?
1
Aggressive_Lie_4446 Mar 29, 2026 -1
So decapitation strikes are useless Not if said decentralized leaders are also being removed from the table, which is currently the case. Decentralization also has one major weakness that people often overlook, that at some point, some decentralized units either desert or defect. The former has already been happening in many parts of Western Iran, especially after their commanders have been eliminated. That has already forced some degree of centralization to return under Vahidi .Why do you think they are already sending death threats to the families of deserters and force conscripting 12 year old members of their families?
-1
Creative-Cherry-4271 Mar 29, 2026 +4
Do you have an idea of what would happen to Iran after this whole thing( if ever blows over?) From my understanding, Israel has already taken out a lot of their leader candidates and heads of the military. If they manage to continue this till the us pulls out, would Iran as a state no longer exist, with multiple territories lead by different leaders? Or would Iran still have a form of government left? And judging by what I’ve seen, it seems impossibly hard for a civilian revolution, since protests are crushed and it becomes a bloodbath. I have little hope for a civilian takeover of the country. The other likely possibility is Iran surviving as a military state with the IRGC ruling. Honestly things don’t look good for the region at all. I have a suspicion that this is going to take the better part of this century to fix( might be exaggerated but it’s going to take a long time), and thats not mentioning the damage to the energy infrastructure.
4
Financial-Bed7467 Mar 29, 2026 +2
I think iran will fall in to civil war, as all of these decentralised powers realise they dont want to give up their power.
2
LordMuffin1 Mar 29, 2026 +3
And then some religious extremists will take control over large parts of the country.
3
Financial-Bed7467 Mar 29, 2026 +2
Probably, I dont think this is going to end well for the IRGC or America. I think the only way iran survives with its current boarders is if the gulf states intervene.
2
LokMatrona Mar 29, 2026
I think they already started to decentralize way earlier after the US-Iraq war.
0
royal_Bishop Mar 29, 2026 +13
This is why they’re going to send in troops. Communications and strategy has become localized and they can’t coordinate anything on a large scale. They have isolated many parts of the military.
13
Murky_Database_569 Mar 29, 2026 +19
I hope not, but its probable. An asymmetrical war, against an opponent with 300k ground force counting the IRGC and Artesh, that's spent the last 30 years digging tunnels in giant mountains, with a vast arsenal of c****, effective drones & still has ballistic missile capabilities. While they disrupt 25% of the worlds oil & fertilizer and have large 100k Militia in a neighboring country (PMF Iraq) all while their proxy harasses another shipping route in the Red Sea (Houthis). I'm no military expert but this sounds like a military, logistical & humanitarian nightmare.
19
Aggressive_Lie_4446 Mar 29, 2026 +2
 hope not, but its probable. An asymmetrical war, against an opponent with 300k ground force counting the IRGC and Artesh, The only members of the Artesh that are ideologically motivated to fight the United States are the top leaders of the Artesh who are themselves originally from the IRGC. The rank and file...not so much. People forget that during the January protests, they specifically prevented the Artesh from accessing their arms because of the fear of defection. Most of them come from families of ordinary Iranians who absolutely hate the regime and would easily turn on the IRGC. The IRGC is not doing so well either. No salaries since January, the main bank that processes state salaries (Sepah Bank) had its data processing center destroyed(same to the remote back ups) so not just the IRGC but all civil servants are not getting their salaries any time soon. Deserters are now common. that's spent the last 30 years digging tunnels in giant mountains All of which are known to Mossad and the CIA and have been mostly destroyed. And now the US is throwing mines into the missile shafts of many of them. This strategy has even been well covered even by the WSJ on how it is backfiring on Iran because the US and Israel know where the missile cities are and by either bunker busting them or at least burying them, automatically Iran loses access to hundreds of stockpiled missiles and thousands of drones. with a vast arsenal of c****, effective drones & still has ballistic missile capabilities. Drones ,Yes. This is the most problematic weapon that Iran possesses. Ballistic Missiles, not so much anymore. Still a threat but not as much as at the start of the war. While they disrupt 25% of the worlds oil & fertilizer Very true. That is why I am 100% sure the targets of the ground op are the Islands at the Strait of Hormuz and even Hormuzug Province, not Kharg Island. If the US is able to capture those places, Iran can do very little to close the Strait again although Iraqi and Kuwaiti shipping will still face a lot of risks .The main issue long term is the destruction Iran has done to the Gulf facilities, whose effects will be felt for years to come. But I can see the US being in a strong position to re-open the Strait of Hormuz and have large 100k Militia in a neighboring country (PMF Iraq) I think the Basij inside Iran itself is a far bigger factor than the PMF. A few Iraqi millitia have been sent to Iran though. The PMF is facing American attacks in Iraq itself right now. However, as long as the US and Israel have air supremacy, then they are on track to lose thousands of members with zero methods of defending themselves(Gogle what Israel did to Basij members who were camping in tents at a sports complex. One night alone had 300 of them gone). As they already have from Israeli drone strikes on checkpoints in most Iranian cities. There is already a lot of fracturing amongst the Basij who are resorting to hiding under bridges ,underpasses and tunnels .In short, their security presence is collapsing over time. In fact, the Police chief of Iran has been complaining about how they are being worn down, how the Basij are sleeping on the street and how deserters are increasing. all while their proxy harasses another shipping route in the Red Sea (Houthis). The Houthis are to be honest, the most problematic ones right now out of all the others. The US can in theory ask the Yemeni government to restart their anti-Houthi campaign and rely on US air cover in advancing towards Sana'a. However, I think the US is stretched as it is. Israel is so far doing the right thing and not retaliating against the Houthis and that is why the Bab El Mandeb has not been closed. I wonder if this will change once the US starts its ground op.
2
froo Mar 29, 2026 +2
“Weekend at Khamenei’s”
2
Skycourts_safety_rep Mar 29, 2026 +1
This can’t be a good thing on a long term basis. Could only ever work temporarily
1
call-the-wizards Mar 29, 2026 +15
No one really knows, the general consensus seems to be that the country is being led by a coalition headed by Ahmad Vahidi, the head of the IRGC, who is himself new to this position, having only obtained it in the recent war. Before, he was just minister of the interior in President Raisi's cabinet (who himself got killed in a helicoper 'crash', widely suspected to be foul play from inside the regime) shit's fucked
15
gomurifle Mar 29, 2026 +6
Their power structure is like a hydra. If one head falls there is multiple that can take its plac. 
6
Technical_Ideal_5439 Mar 29, 2026 +14
Supreme Leader's plan was that if he died, every group would act independently to follow his instructions. It is why some things that happen are not ideal for Iran. And I have doubts anyone is in a position to represent and 100% control Iran's response. They have a habit of being killed.
14
100862233 Mar 29, 2026 +13
Are people really this dense? Do you think a modern nation is destroyed because one or few guys is killed? Do you think the United States, France, Germany, or UK is suddenly going to collapse because the top leaders are dead?
13
nonamer18 Mar 29, 2026 +3
No because there isn't the same level of propaganda smearing the US, France, Germany, or the UK.
3
TheGenkz Mar 29, 2026 +4
Why do you say "obviously"? No internal power struggle seems to be emerging, and the regime's messaging and strategy have remained effectively unchanged since Khamenei was chosen as the new supreme leader. What contrary evidence could you present that would lead someone to believe that Khamenei is not in power?
4
Darkone539 Mar 29, 2026 +1
>Real question before yall downvote me... who is leading Iran at this point? Obviously the new guy is not calling the shots (if he is even able to), so who is? Seems to be the speaker of their parliament. He's in contact with the new guy though.
1
Oreoko Mar 29, 2026 +1
Vahidi is the most powerful Iranian figure right now. He is de facto supreme leader.
1
smitteh Mar 29, 2026 -1
New leadership can't be announced because Israel dominates Trump and the US and continues to assassinate Iran's new leaders against Trump's wishes. It's pathetic
-1
call-the-wizards Mar 29, 2026 +49
To people not familiar with Iran: The 'parliament' has always been pushing for exiting the NPT, for about as long as I can remember. The 'parliament' in Iran is [a set of selected individuals](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/demystifying-irans-parliamentary-election-process/) chosen specifically to be hardliner (much more hardline than the actual people in charge) so that they can point to them and say "see, we're moderate, the people's representatives are way worse than even us"
49
NorthAd6077 Mar 29, 2026 +1
It's weird to call appointed puppets "politicians". Iran doesn't have real elections or a real parliament, why use words that legitimize the regime?
1
fretkat Mar 29, 2026 +3
Sadly, the US/Israel attack handed them a reasonable way out without too much backlash in (inter)national politics on a silver platter
3
grahamsuth Mar 29, 2026 +77
They would be acutely aware of how this war wouldn't have happened if they had nukes. They also have seen how powerful countries don't respect treaties and international law etc.
77
endlessfight85 Mar 29, 2026 +46
At this point pretty much every nation that wants to protect its sovereignty needs a nuke, as fucked up as that is.
46
grahamsuth Mar 29, 2026 +8
Yeah, Russia could start selling them on the black market. It would be the ultimate money making product of their military industrial complex. It would be taking a lead from Trump's transactional approach that only cares about the transaction/negotiation in hand, without caring about the consequences. If Putin was to do that, what could anyone do to stop him that they haven't already tried with the Ukraine war? It would be the ultimate consequence of Trump's behaviour towards less powerful countries.
8
Dan-Of-The-Dead Mar 29, 2026 +13
Yeah, American aggression has probably given them the strongest arguments *for* developing nuclear weapons.
13
BackgroundBit8 Mar 29, 2026 +13
I've come to the conclusion that peace will be achieved only when every country has nukes.
13
IcyClock2374 Mar 29, 2026 +11
More countries with nukes just brings more risk to everyone. Yeah, MAD will keep people in check most of the time, but now youve exponentially increased the odds of something catastrophic happening.
11
Soft-Coast-56 Mar 29, 2026 +4
have you seen rafah? you would think its ground zero of a nuke. catastrophes are happening right now without nukes
4
Surferion Mar 29, 2026 +2
No one is saying there are no catastrophes. Give everyone nukes and you’ll have more Rafahs with some radiation on top.
2
__konrad Mar 29, 2026 +1
60 nukes per every country if you equally share all existing weapons...
1
Hiraeth-nomad Mar 29, 2026 +11
>Hardliners have previously demanded an NPT exit and a nuclear bomb in response to outside pressure. >It would be meaningless for Iran to remain a signatory to the international treaty as it “has had no benefit for us”, said Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesman for the national security commission of parliament >Malek Shariati, a representative from Tehran, said that a priority piece of legislation has been uploaded in an online parliamentary portal and will be reviewed soon. >According to Shariati, the legislation will withdraw Iran from the NPT, revoke a law that adopted nuclear restrictions linked with a now-defunct 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, and “support a new international treaty with aligned countries [including Shanghai Cooperation Organization/BRICS] on developing peaceful nuclear technologies”. >Iranian authorities continue to accuse the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of taking a politicised stance and being complicit in attacks against Iranian nuclear sites, charges the United Nations nuclear watchdog rejects.
11
pasterhatt Mar 29, 2026 +1
Of course they are. They see North Korea. The only way to guarantee your sovereignty in a world where 2 of the worlds largest militaries are adversaries is to have a nuke.  They aren't the only ones. Every middle power now knows that the US can't and won't guarantee your safety. Nukes are comparatively c****, and an almost 100% guarantee of safety.
1
ContributionUpper424 Mar 29, 2026 +9
The US and Israel eliminated the one person who was preventing Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons and now Iran is actively seeking them for survival.
9
IcyUse33 Mar 29, 2026 -19
Not true. Iran was enriching uranium past levels needed for civilian uses. They were making a bomb along with the missile delivery systems to hurl it thousands of kilometers. What's troublesome is Trump didn't make the case to the American public to support a war because of the previous Iraq WMD arguments. Midnight Hammer set it back a few months but you don't take Uranium to 60% when 3.5% will do.
-19
sshwifty Mar 29, 2026 +19
They have been "months away" for 20+ years. So someone is lying to us.
19
Brambletail Mar 29, 2026 +13
That's not how nuclear weapons work. It's not like a scientific break through or discovery. Iran can be 2 months away from acquiring nuclear weapons for decades. It just means it would take them about 2 months of work to assemble a device from where they currently are. This is a really advantageous position for Iran to be in because it is a credible threat of them being able to nuke anything in 90 days or so should they want to while also being able to pull out the "we are an innocent and peaceful nation who would never pursue nuclear weapons" card whenever they are criticized. Syria attempted similar strategies. Nuclear weapons are not scientifically challenging to build. It took a little over a decade to go from discovering a nuclear reaction was possible to building a bomb, an absolutely miniscule amount of time. That is how dead simple building one is. The reason countries struggle are financial and resource related, the endless amount of uranium needed to get enough 235, the cost of enrichment, the safety protocols to prevent your team from poisoning and or irradiating themselves, etc. On top of that, nuclear weapons decay, so you need to make new cores every few years, meaning you have to commit to maintaining them once you have them. By just assembling the enriched uranium and stockpiling it, Iran is perpetually a short, non technical step away from nuclear weapons. Forever. They have a measure of nuclear deterrence without the cost of nuclear weapons. So no, no one is lying to you. You just don't know what you are talking about. And you should probably assume the reason Iran keeps bringing up nuclear treaty abolition is because they want to say the day after they trash the treaty that they have a nuclear weapon that they some how miraculously built in a day.
13
Cobrastrikenana Mar 29, 2026 +5
We completely destroyed their nuclear capabilities last year. Somebody is definitely lying.
5
Thomasasia Mar 29, 2026 +2
They have purposefully not refined the uranium to weapons grade. For years it has not been politically beneficial to do so.
2
Siluri Mar 29, 2026 +1
And trump proved to the whole world if you dont have nuclear weapons, you are just another target for nuclear countries to flex on.
1
DJTotoro Mar 29, 2026 -3
“Months away for 20+ years” is misleading. Back in the Stuxnet era, Iran’s enrichment was low (about 3 to 20%), so that timeline was just potential, not active bomb-making. After 2019, with enrichment hitting roughly 60%, the “months away” became real. Capability existed for years, but risk only spiked once they escalated.
-3
Moist-Highway-6787 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Well, that sounds like exactly what we intended to achieve, huh
1
Midnitdragoon Mar 29, 2026 +1
I tight trump said we won in iran weeks ago
1
xieem Mar 29, 2026 +1
U even won multiple times in the same week
1
Remarkable_Sea_1430 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Why even bother to be in a treaty involving the United States. We break our own treaties whenever our fat f*** president decides to. The treaties aren't worth the toilet paper they may as well be written on.
1
shedbdinskssbjd Mar 29, 2026 -13
That is good news. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, there will never be another war.
-13
Funny-Ambition-7631 Mar 29, 2026 +2
Giving a islamic terrorist regime a nuclear weapon is a good news for you? Where do you live? Mars?
2
a619ko Mar 29, 2026 +17
The same thing was being said about North Korea…now look at them. Kim is chilling with his nukes. No one is messing with him now. Every sovereign country should have nukes to deter imperialist aggression. Look at Ukraine, had they had nukes, Russia would not be invading.
17
84Cressida Mar 29, 2026 -9
North Korea isn’t run by radical religious nut cases.
-9
hipsnarky Mar 29, 2026 +21
Yeah it’s ran by a radical nut case who thinks of himself as a god. It’s a good thing he isn’t religious!!
21
Technical_Ideal_5439 Mar 29, 2026 +2
It's important to bomb them alot first, for extra support.
2
KriosXVII Mar 29, 2026 +7
Well, North Korea has them and they're certainly minding their own business and not being bombed right now.
7
Funny-Ambition-7631 Mar 29, 2026 +10
lets arm every country of the planet with nuclear bombs
10
Sandviscerate Mar 29, 2026 +8
The entire problem is that that's the obvious end result of what the US is doing. Countries like Russia and North Korea are getting away with garbage at least in part because they have nukes, while Ukraine and Iran are attacked. As much as I don't want it to be the case, I find it hard to argue that any country shouldn't come to the conclusion that nukes are the most sure way to protect yourself.
8
shedbdinskssbjd Mar 29, 2026 -6
I don't care what kind of regime they are. I just think that having no more war is a good thing.
-6
8412155 Mar 29, 2026 -6
You may well be the most naive person on Earth. If the Iranian regime acquires a nuclear weapon, it won’t be the end of war. It will be the end. Period.
-6
shedbdinskssbjd Mar 29, 2026 +10
Calling me naive doesn't change history. People said the same thing during the Cold War and with India-Pakistan. Regimes, no matter how extreme, prioritize their own survival. They know using a nuke means they get wiped out too. That balance of terror is exactly what prevents full-scale wars.
10
OldKid1998 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Well all it take is one irrational leader with nuke and the world end. Let's say, if Iran has nuke and decide to nuke Israel, what do US and UN even do? Nothing lol, probably add more sanction
1
shedbdinskssbjd Mar 29, 2026 +1
You're completely ignoring the elephant in the room: Israel already has nuclear weapons. If Iran nukes Israel, Israel retaliates immediately and turns them to ash. That’s exactly how MAD works.
1
OldKid1998 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Except Israel is much much smaller than Iran. Once Iran nuke them first, they have no way to retaliate. Even if they succefully retaliate. Iran at most suffer significant damage, but a single nuke may really wipe out Israel
1
New_Blacksmith_709 Mar 29, 2026 -6
The fact that they are pursuing the nuke is one of the reasons why this will last 6 more months. Blame trump. Speedrunning the end of the American age.
-6
shedbdinskssbjd Mar 29, 2026 +14
Blaming Iran's nuclear pursuit for prolonging this completely ignores history. Netanyahu has been singing this exact same tune for 3 decades. When Iran actually chose diplomacy and gave up its nuclear ambitions, they were still targeted and attacked. You can't sabotage a peace deal, attack a country, and then act surprised when they seek the ultimate deterrence. The failure of diplomacy is what's dragging this out
14
mister_git_em Mar 29, 2026 -1
They’re being facetious. The “joke” is that if Iran gets nukes, humanity is doomed.
-1
nota_is_useless Mar 29, 2026 -4
Iran has not invaded any of its neighbours, forget countries on the other side of the globe. 
-4
Funny-Ambition-7631 Mar 29, 2026 -3
Are you sure you are following news of the current war?
-3
nota_is_useless Mar 29, 2026 +6
Lol, which countries has iran invaded?
6
United-Salamander-89 Mar 29, 2026 +3
I think infiltrated would be the apt word here. I assume you know they fund/supply/train armed militias all over the region, including the one holding Lebanon's government hostage. Seems dishonest to pretend that's somehow different or better than invading outright
3
nota_is_useless Mar 29, 2026 -1
Invasion is a lot different than funding militia by a very large factor. And yes, invasion is way worse. Otherwise, usa funding of mujahaddin in Afghanistan is no different from soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Usa has funded armed groups across the world including Syria, Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc - every large country does this, Iran or USA is no exception.  And do check out how Iraq govt formation has been blocked for 4 months because of USA unwilling to accept a democratic result. Maliki would the pm if not for us opposition and us opposition is a problem as iraq oil sales are routed though us fed. 
-1
OldKid1998 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Invasion isn't necessarily worse than funding terrorist, terrorist does not have any moral code, see what happen 7/10. If Israel is weaker than Hamas, something much more terrible will happen. US does not have good record, but try to sugarcoated what Iran did is hypocrite.
1
United-Salamander-89 Mar 29, 2026 +1
I see your point but it doesn't seem like the US or any other country that seems to practice the proxy war business is having their groups launch rockets at literally everyone and commit acts of terror like we see in the ME. There's no goal, no rules of engagement. Shoot rockets at passing ships, kill and torture civilians. Commit an oct 7...They're sponsoring terror and chaos, not hopeful revolutions.
1
ZeroPhish1234 Mar 29, 2026
Hoping by the time they get one yes this is possibly where i will be living. Ill even settle for the moon right now
0
articland05_reddit Mar 29, 2026 -10
why would they care about treaty even if already signed? they are already planning for nuclear even before the war anyway...
-10
hipsnarky Mar 29, 2026 +13
Planning for nuclear when? Since 1995? Because that’s when bibi started crying about imaginary nukes.
13
yousufahmed_11 Mar 29, 2026 +5
They never planned to develop actual nuclear weapons. Previous Ayatollah gave out a religious decree that these were forbidden. They were enriching uranium until 60% to use it as a leverage against US.
5
External_Counter378 Mar 29, 2026 +3
Yes they never meant to build a nuclear weapon, they just built the most important part, and were totally going to stop right there...
3
yousufahmed_11 Mar 29, 2026 +10
Well, that’s what the US intelligence was saying earlier too until trump came out and said “They don’t know anything” You cannot be weeks away from nuclear weapon for 20 years if they actually wanted a nuclear weapon. Look at N Korea for example.
10
External_Counter378 Mar 29, 2026
Right because north Korea totally stopped with all the pieces to build a nuclear weapon?
0
yousufahmed_11 Mar 29, 2026 +4
Maybe bcz unlike Iran, N Korea withdrew from NPT in 2003 with the intention of developing nukes and actually tested their first nuke within 3 years in 2006. If N Korea did it, Iran could have easily done it ages ago if this was their intention
4
External_Counter378 Mar 29, 2026 +3
North Korea was shielded by China otherwise there would just be one Korea and it would be capitalist. Iran being physically isolated means they are vulnerable as they try to develop nukes, hence they need to try to be sneaky and here we are.
3
OldKid1998 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Pretending Iran enriching uranium to 60% only as leverage is dishonest.
1
Budgeko Mar 29, 2026 -1
This is all the more reason the job in Iran needs to be finished. A Rogue country seeking Nuclear capabilities that is now holding Crude oil hostage at the Strait. This is exactly the optics this administration wants to show. 🇺🇸🇺🇸
-1
robster9090 Mar 29, 2026 +1
Shock they want out after being attacked during peace talks .🤣
1
watch-nerd Mar 29, 2026 -3
So they're getting ready to test a bomb.
-3
waylandsmith Mar 29, 2026
What does this change? If the US believes this, this means the US will not end the war until there's a regime change with a different policy, or this regime will change this policy and somehow convince the US and Israel they're sincere. This appears to be the same outcomes that existed before.
0
MustardCoveredDogDik Mar 29, 2026 -11
Russia could always just.. give them one.
-11
Educational_Bend_941 Mar 29, 2026 +4
How many ships through the straight at $2m a pop before they can buy one from north Korea?
4
tryagainlater63 Mar 29, 2026 -2
Pakistan is much closer. And a common religious base.
-2
Macktheattack Mar 29, 2026 +2
Not quite. Pakistan is majority Sunni muslim while the Iranians are Shia’s
2
SensationalSavior Mar 29, 2026 -9
Yeah, and the moment Israel or the US finds out Iran will be a smoldering heap.
-9
Sandviscerate Mar 29, 2026 +9
Israel and the US are already trying to turn them into a smouldering heap, what's the difference?
9
IcyUse33 Mar 29, 2026 -3
They're trying to leave infrastructure in place for a revolution. Transfer of nuclear weapons to religious nutjobs in Iran will likely result in widespread carpet bombing, even tactical nukes to prevent said transfer.
-3
Sandviscerate Mar 29, 2026 +3
You have a hell of a lot more confidence then I do in the current US administration having any sort of solid plan for this.
3
BuckedTheSystem44 Mar 29, 2026 -14
Oh f***. Only a matter of time now before the whole planet is nuked. Fucked. We’re all fucked.
-14
Specialist-Garbage94 Mar 29, 2026 +7
It’s one country, they already weren’t really following the NPT and at the end of the day if the world does actually think it’s a threat they will continue to bomb those sites before they get too advanced.
7
Freddybear480 Mar 29, 2026 -2
Don’t threaten us with a good time
-2
← Back to Board