this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2026
407 points (98.3% liked)
World News
39685 readers
815 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's worth noting that Khamenei was the main reason Iran did not develop nuclear weapons up to now. With him gone, that becomes a much more likely scenario.
How?
Khamenei issued a religieus ruling against developing nukes
But they were still enriching uranium covertly. How's that?
Because Iran wasn't a dictatorship.
It had factions.
You know how Iran was always months away from nukes? It was. That was the hard liner faction who believed that only nukes would ensure Iran's safety wanting to be able to quickly have one if the fatwa was removed.
Did you not know this? If not, you should stop watching/reading the new sources that didn't tell you this widely available information. They're not new sources but propaganda sources.
It had factions.
Isn't ayatollah the supreme leader?
Isn't the president the executive branch?
Jesus Christ, do you have any critical thinking skills?
As far as I know, ayatollah is entitled to command all leaders of all branches.
That's why he's called the supreme leader.
It's not true?
Stop ignoring everything else I wrote you fucking propaganda poisoned jackass.
Stop being unnecessarily rude.
Also: am I right in my point about ayatollah supremacy?
No, you're not.
You're arguing by title to ignore the points made like a sophist. That is explicitly rude, while trying to pretend it isn't.
Bad faith responses deserve nothing other than the reflection of the rudeness they project.
I think we disagree.
By the way, I'm from Russia, and we have our own "totally not authoritarian" head of just one branch of government.
And the ayatollah - he's effectively the head of all branches, while also having religious authority. It's very hard to see any democracy here.
We don't disagree. You are factually wrong. I'm not saying that it isn't an authoritarian state. It absolutely is.but the simple fact of the matter is that the Ayatollah isn't involved most decisions. His power mostly came into play with selecting who could run in their elections, which absolutely are real with the opposing sides running having significant political differences.
Did he get to set the goal posts for their parties? Yes, absolutely, and that isn't a full on true democracy. But the Iranian civilians have far far more say in their government than a civilian Russian, for example.
Moreover, you're debating all of this shit in ignorance to move the topic away from the fact the Iran didn't have nukes SOLELY because the leader was religiously opposed to them. The religious leader the US and Israeli's killed. While proving that they are unreliable negotiators.
The only rational view at this point for the average Iranian is to demand nukes.
You told me that Iran was covertly enriching uranuim , despite the will of ayatollah, because there are factions in Iran.
If that's your point, then I disagree with you, because of all the power ayatollah had.
(By the way, I'm not defending the USA & Israel war intervention. Nor am I enamoured with Iranian leadership.)
First of all, they were enriching uranium openly, not covertly, with IAEE monitoring their every move. Unlike Israel which has undeclared and never inspected nuclear arsenal.
Second, enriching uranium has non-military uses like nuclear medicine (at which Iran is actually a global leader btw).
And third, well, it's easier to get 90% enriched uranium from 60% than it is from zero, in case the ruling changes.
Nuclear power?
Having enough 60% enriched uranium to make a thermonuclear bomb if they change the ruling ≠ weaponizing their nuclear program