Tankers, talks and Trump's 'dangerous' blockade: China's Iran war involvement gets louder

Just like Russia had the world seeing them, before they got their ass handed to them by Ukraine

I dont know. Just that they have been preaching “death to America” for the last 40 years…

Because of the shia ideology. Because of the power balance in the middle east and the petro dollar. Because of muslim immigration to europe. It would rebalance the global order. Too much change and instability at once.

Russia isn't stupid enough to make itself shunned by the entire world by kicking off a nuclear armageddon in eastern europe just so it can have some measly square miles of land when it's already so bloated and large. China's goals don't involve nuclear war either, as turning Taiwan into a smouldering radioactive rock doesn't make for a very nice homecoming of their long lost province. North Korea was never supposed to have a Nuclear Weapon, in fact Clinton almost got them to give up trying for one. Once it did eventually happen there wasn't exactly much anybody could do about it, unless they wanted to see Seoul go up in smoke. Knowing that the Kims only real purpose for having the Bomb was their regime's survival and that they usually leave their neighbours alone beside some sabre rattling here and there doesn't make intervention necessary. Iran. Iran has spent decades building up terrorist proxies all over the Middle East and pledged the destruction of the US and Israel, GOING AS FAR AS PUTTING UP A COUNTDOWN CLOCK IN TEHRAN for when it will supposedly happen. Safe to say them having a society ending weapon with the means and will to deliver it, isn't really a prospect any country should accept.

I guess that would have depended on if Iran still had ambitions for a nuclear weapon, we will never know.

I guess that would have depended on if Iran still had ambitions for a nuclear weapon, we will never know.

Bro relax, I'm not MAGA and I think the war was a stupid blunder. Even after the US violated the deal they did not build a bomb. Nothing in my comment is incorrect. Your comment indicated that there was no evidence they were building a bomb - intentionally enriching, storing, and maintaining weapons grade uranium is intentional communication on their part that they could build a bomb, at a whim and at a moment's notice, if they wanted to. That kind of communication is high risk, but before US leadership became special needs it was understood that they were not building a bomb. Look, as much as we want to project values and morals globally, there really is no such thing in geopolitics. Iran stepped short of building a bomb because to actually do so would cause a large shift and it was in their best interest to show they could. And, there are multiple power factions in Iran. The ayatollah was anti-nuke and was a moderate voice in the country's leadership, but you can be assured that there were contingency plans championed by IRGC and others that likely involved building a nuke. The US, depending on the leadership in charge, would see a finished nuke as an existential threat, as would the rest of the middle east. You really want to frame this as US bad guys Iran innocent guys, but the broader situation is much more nuanced than that and broadly falls outside international ethics. Iran wants to expand it's sphere of influence at the cost of the US. Neither is really wrong for taking the stance that they do, and the political ideologies of each country are at complete odds with each other. I do agree with you that a possible off ramp was in works with the Obama deal, and wish it had not been tossed. The current president is not very smart.