They should really consider it at this point
this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2026
205 points (99.5% liked)
Geopolitics
563 readers
5 users here now
Welcome
Visit us on Matrix at #geopol:matrix.org
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
That's the lesson I think a lot of countries have beeen learning. Don't fuck with someone who can make thir own portable star.
Of course not. Iran was playing by the rules because they were trying to avoid exactly what happened in the last few days.
EDIT: To add to this, the conflict is mostly due to Iran not wanting to share its oil resources. Just like Venezuela. Just like Lybia. Just like any other country who doesn't want to have its energy resources exploited by U.S. interests.
To be more specific, they refuse to accept US currency for oil purchases.
Well yeah no shit.
You think the USA would start a war with a country that has nukes?
Absolutely. Look who the fuck is in charge.
Iran has oil, there is the reason for the war for you. Anything else is just excuses that may or may not be based on also real things, but which wouldnt get reacted at if iran didnt have oil.
The Iraqi WMDs, all over again.
No fucking way man fr?
Refining nuclear materials is really not that complicated. I mean it's just, well, refining, while being safe about radiation. The only reason iran doesn't have nuclear weapons is because they don't want to. Which means they decided to abide by the nonproliferation treaties they signed. And since the US didn't, we now get to see how everyone else who signed one behaves. Yaaaaay.
If they don't want, or treat with wanting, why are they refining all that fissile material then?
They do want the bomb
2 weeks away from nuclear weapons since the 70's
I didn't say that though.
For fuel for electricity generation, as explicitly allowed in the treaties.
Then why go over a couple of percent of refinement? There is no other reason than to make weapon grade uranium. At 60 percent they are not "2 weeks from a bomb" but they are fucking far from 3-4% that is used for civil energy generation.
Did they go to 60%? Verified by the UN? I wasn't aware of that...
Well you are now, and even 20% means they want to at least pretend to work towards an atomic bomb.
You surely have a link to the un report...
Nice sealioning. Show me they stayed under 4% smarty.
I never claimed they did...
Lol
Indeed
Thanks Benjamin.
do they have any reactors?
Does it fuck you in the ass?
What is this 6 yo rhetoric lol, go back to kindergarten.
It sure does but I don't judge you
Are you okay?
Are you saying that their bombs aren't made of atoms? Huh? Huh?
When has that ever stopped the US?
Why build when you can buy?
At what point the reason for this war where nuclear weapons? Did trump even say this?
Yes, they gave 8 excuses in the first 24h, one of them was "they are 2 weeks away from a nuke", which has been the talking point since the 70s.
Enriching large amounts of uranium above 20% isn't a good idea.
No, the whole point of bombing Iran was to make the point that it is and trying diplomacy with the US as an alternative is suicidal.
I tend to trust the IAEA, not the Iranian government, how about you?
Ok, trust them then fool
Speaking in remarks reported on Tuesday evening, Grossi said Iran possesses a large stockpile of enriched uranium that has reached levels close to weapons-grade. However, he stressed that the agency has not found proof that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260304-iaea-says-no-evidence-iran-is-building-a-nuclear-bomb/
In response to the attacks, Iran excluded UN inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from those and other sensitive sites, with the result that the watchdog lost track of what became of the 440kg HEU stockpile, and of what was being done in the deep tunnels in Isfahan and Natanz.
In its latest report, the IAEA conceded it could not verify whether Iran had suspended all enrichment-related activities, or the size of its uranium stockpile at the affected nuclear facilities.
Despite that uncertainty, the IAEA director general, Rafael Grossi, said on Monday that “we don’t see a structured programme to manufacture nuclear weapons”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/04/us-israel-strikes-iran-nuclear-program-could-backfire
Thanks for proving my point. From the article you linked:
Most worryingly for the international community, Iran had by last summer produced a stockpile of just over 440kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU), of 60% purity. In terms of technical difficulty, once at 60%, it is a relatively easy step to reach 90% – weapons-grade uranium that can be used to make a compact warhead.
You don't need HEU for civilian nuclear power operations.
You ignored the main part though
Despite that uncertainty, the IAEA director general, Rafael Grossi, said on Monday that “we don’t see a structured programme to manufacture nuclear weapons”.
You don't need "a structured programme to manufacture nuclear weapons" for it to be clear that's what the intention is. At that point it's already too late.
Again: You don’t need highly enriched uranium (HEU) for civilian nuclear power operations.
Did you ignore the part of there being no evidence Iran was developing a nuclear bomb?
a stockpile of just over 440kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU), of 60% purity
a stockpile of just over 440kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU), of 60% purity
Here let me make it a bit easier to read:
a stockpile of just over 440kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU), of 60% purity
did…did you read it though?
Since it is so easy why didn't they do it?
Because they got bombed?
They was at 60% for 4 years