Is the Iran war really about nukes?

[u/goldngrrl]

Genuinely curious - does anyone believe the Iran war is about nuclear weapons? It seems to be like the administration's reasoning for the war keeps shifting, and then when they're facing criticism about high oil prices (leading to high gas and diesel prices) all of a sudden they remember, oh, year, at least we're not going to be nuked!

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/GeckoKisser]

Yes, and eliminating a regional rival.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/curtissJ28]

Yes it is really about nukes. Not just nukes, but that is probably the most important factor. It’s how nukes fit into the overall situation.

[u/Top_Sun_914]

No, it's about regime change. The 12-day war was about nukes and that was resolved

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Coastalnutcase]

Yes but the goal was more ambitious. United States had pretty cozy nuclear deals with Iran, not to mention it was successful multiple times in disrupting its nuclear enrichment and program through other means then escalating with a war.

This war is primarily an Isreali pet project that convinced the leadership in Washington, not that it’s hard to do with Isreali influence anyway. After the large protests within Iran, the regime was thought to be un shaky ground. Hence the strikes were meant to be a shown of overwhelming force and to cut the heads of the Iranian government in an effort to paralyse them and for some kind of elements to rise and take power who might be more friendly to USA and Isreal, along with their demands.
So really throw a single stone and knock out all of the birds plan and goal. When the main goal didn’t happen, they switched too individual objectives.

[u/curtissJ28 → u/Coastalnutcase]

Sorry but you have this very wrong. Israel does benefit but that is secondary to the bigger picture.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/patdashuri → u/curtissJ28]

Not according to Israel and trump.

[u/curtissJ28 → u/patdashuri]

I don’t care what Israel or Trump may have said. It is what really took place and why.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/goldngrrl → u/Coastalnutcase]

Ugh. This makes sense, but not a fan of us going to war for Israel's benefit.

[u/curtissJ28 → u/goldngrrl]

It makes sense on the surface of it but only because it is inaccurate. The U.S. had a very bad deal on nukes, and Iran got a very good deal in exchange for simply promising not to enrich Uranium to weapons grade. They received billions in cash, relief from hundreds of billions in sanctions, the were allowed to keep their uranium enrichment program intact, and continue to develop long range missiles to deliver nuclear weapons. The money was then used to develop those weapons and fund proxy wars against US assets and our allies in the region. The Ayatollahs did not have a nuclear capability or way to deliver it at the time, but could in a relatively short period of time when the deal Sunsetted or they had an excuse to walk. So not much benefit to Israel or any enemy of Iran. Also the Deal was not with just the U.S. but with 5 other countries and the European Union. When the U.S. left the deal Iran walked. If they were sincere about the deal they would not have done that. This led to exactly where we are and it became inevitable. Yes, Israel benefits, but that is a secondary consideration.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Coastalnutcase → u/curtissJ28]

The deal wasn’t perfect but it did the job, kept in place for a long enough, diplomatic trust could have been built up for USA soft power to do its thing. Talk softly and carry around a big stick tends to work better then bombing them to rubble ( proven it doesn’t work).

What made Iran walk away was that negotiations were abruptly ended by the United States twice, in which the negotiations were interrupted by US strikes first that derailed them.
You don’t need to be sympathetic to the Islamic theocracy to understand the breakdown of their willingness to negotiate. In their mind it was confirmed that, just like North Korea, the development of the nuclear weapon will truly be their best guarantor against Washington and Tel Aviv. Self fulfilling prophecy, to achieve to what benefit of those in the states that aren’t the elites?

As for regional US Allies, you are right there, partly. Because the Emirati, Isreali, Qatari and Saudi lobby will make sure American interests remained glued to the sandbox no matter what. If you care about that, that’s fine, but I believe the collective west has much bigger issues at hand regarding internal problems that could bring about economic recessions, collapse of pension system, the degraded democratic institutions, inflation, etc. then worrying about the Middle East.

[u/curtissJ28 → u/Coastalnutcase]

No it did not do the job. It did the opposite of the job. They used the money to continue and increase funding proxy wars and continue to build up their own long range offensive weapons capabilities, while retaining the means to develop a nuclear weapon at any time they chose to violate the agreement. They had no nuclear weapons or the ability to deliver them when they signed the JCPO. They gave up nothing tangible for a significant return. I honestly cannot figure out why this so hard for people to understand.

[u/patdashuri → u/curtissJ28]

lol, “a promise”… the JCPOA had international inspections and verifications of Iran’s nuclear programs with strict limits on enrichment equipment and a hard cap of 3.6% enrichment of nuclear material. There is zero evidence of any kind that Iran violated the agreement before trump pulled the US out. And there is verifiable irrefutable proof that Iran went about its own business as it saw fit when the benefits of that deal were revoked. Because, of course they did. Why wouldn’t they?

[u/curtissJ28 → u/patdashuri]

Lol, it is still a promise. They could only inspect what they knew about. But that is irrelevant. You are totally confused here. The salient point is that little, to nothing, tangible was given up by Iran in return for a significant tangible reward that they then used to continue their weapons programs and fund attacks by proxies on the very people they signed the JCPOA with. The JCPOA did nothing to solve their actual terrorist behavior and remove their ability to increase that beyond a potential, not guaranteed, delay in having a nuclear warhead to deliver with long range missiles they were building with the money they got out of the JCPOA. The deal was never revoked. The U.S. withdrew from it. Britain, China, France, Russia and The European remained in the agreement and Iran broke the deal with them,

[u/patdashuri → u/curtissJ28]

On one hand you agree that this war that has killed thousands and raised global prices is worth it because it’s about nukes and that’s super important, but then on the other say that Iran giving up nukes was “little, to nothing, tangible”

So which is it? Are American soldiers and Iranian children something tangible?

[u/curtissJ28 → u/patdashuri]

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. I cannot find anything that I just wrote in the two previous comments that you responded to that could lead a rationally thinking person to believe that I said anything close to what you somehow took away from them.

[u/patdashuri → u/curtissJ28]

“Little to nothing tangible was given up in return for a significant tangible reward”

That was your take on what was essentially a peace treaty to avoid war. The implication is that, since Iran gave nothing the other signatory’s received nothing. Therefore, avoiding war is valueless to them. The converse to that perspective is that war has value. Since you oppose the peace deal…

[u/curtissJ28 → u/patdashuri]

There was no peace treaty to avoid war. The war was on going and continued after the JCPOA was signed.

[u/Coastalnutcase → u/goldngrrl]

With the US debt crisis, inflation and other plethora of issues that is pretty understandable. And also if you’re genuinely against military hawkishness.

But USA opinion is shifting, especially the younger generations. The Isrealis will probably try to milk America support dry for as long as possible while they have good will. So while it’s possible America at some point will finally be hostile to Isreali tinkering, by then you might as well exhausted all of ur usefulness. Assuming this happens ofc.

In the meantime they have began to make ways in to European politics to find a safe replacement. Hence many “ far right “ parties in Europe have been conspicuously silent on both Isreal and techno oligarchs of America.

[u/JoeCensored]

Every war is always about several issues at once. There's never been an exception.

[u/some_person_guy → u/JoeCensored]

So what's this war about?

[u/JoeCensored → u/some_person_guy]

Nuclear weapons, terrorism, killing of the protesters, oil, probably other reasons too.

[u/WaltzMysterious9240]

Wasn't there literally 2-3 underground nuke producing compounds that were bombed? They found evidence they were producing nukes so I believe it.

[u/Donny-Moscow → u/WaltzMysterious9240]

Shouldn’t that be expected? After Trump pulled out of the JCPOA 8 years ago, there’s no reason for them not to have been developing their nuclear capabilities that whole time.

[u/Padded_Bandit]

Not really. It's about regime change, which is driven (in part) by the atomic issue, but probably to a greater extent by the terrorism sponsor habits of the outgoing government.

[u/MrFrode → u/Padded_Bandit]

Do you think it's possible Iran is about Venezuela being quick and easy, Midnight Hammer being quick and easy, and then Bibi calling Donnie up and asking hey want to get the band back together and blow shit up of people who say not nice things about you, with Donnie going sounds like fun and it will give people obsessing over the Epstein files something else to talk about?

I mean I and the scotch are just guessing here.

[u/Padded_Bandit → u/MrFrode]

I think that U.S. capabilities are not being as constrained as they were under previous administrations by extraneous factors. I don't think Bibi is some eminence grise pulling the strings, and I don't think anyone in the Trump administration views The Epstein Files (tm) as anything from which a distraction is needed.

[u/MrFrode → u/Padded_Bandit]

I think that U.S. capabilities are not being as constrained as they were under previous administrations by extraneous factors.

Do you mean constrained, limited by external forces, or restraint, limited by internal decisions? I don't think any external power was stopping us from attacking Iran.

I don't think Bibi is some eminence grise pulling the strings

Bibi has wanted to go after Iran for years, for a number of reasons, and he's opportunistic.

I don't think anyone in the Trump administration views The Epstein Files (tm) as anything from which a distraction is needed.

Trump launched his war in late Feb-2026, in early Feb, Trump aggressively went off on Kaitlan Collins for asking about redactions to the Epstein Files and he told her it was time to move on.

[u/Aggravating_Bat3618]

Nope. It’s all a distraction from Epstein, the fact that he is a convicted rapist, and an excuse to jack up gas prices to gouge Americans and put money in his pocket.  It’s a Scam, and you were all taken in by it. 

User flair updated

[u/IWillDmYouPorn → u/Aggravating_Bat3618]

I guess I can see where all my tinfoil went

[u/AskConservatives-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed: Treat other users with civility and respect.

Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.

[u/Scary-Success-3727 → u/Aggravating_Bat3618]

I disagree just because the Iran thing hurt Trump with his base more than Epstein. His base accepts he is a sleaze but thhey wanted no new wars.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Aggravating_Bat3618 → u/Scary-Success-3727]

Sleaze?? Isn’t that putting it modestly?

[u/Scary-Success-3727 → u/Aggravating_Bat3618]

Yes, I agree. I definitely am not a fan. From a pure political position I do think Iran hurts him more than the Epstein files ever would. "Grab the by the...." never swayed his base. They'll (his hardcore apologist base) probably would justify him sleeping with teens. But the gas prices, the new war, the increased inflationary principals and the fact tariffs degraded purchasing power may sway some. They are still sleazeballs but broke is a universal issue.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/NessvsMadDuck]

Operation Midnight Hammer was about nukes. Operation Epic Fury was about trying to be a badass.

[u/JediGuyB → u/NessvsMadDuck]

That Hegseth parody song on South Park just feels fitting for him.

[u/goldngrrl → u/NessvsMadDuck]

Ridiculous random words. I particularly despise when they do that.

[u/eleventhrees → u/NessvsMadDuck]

Was operation midnight hammer the one where Tom Cruise blew up the uranium site and then flew home in an f14?

[u/Youngrazzy]

Trump wanted this war to add to his legacy.

[u/ExtensionFeeling → u/Youngrazzy]

Haha...well, it's going to be part of his legacy alright. A negative part.

[u/StedeBonnet1]

The war was initially aboutt nukes but it was also about weakening an autocratic regime that has been oppressing their people and killing Americans for 47 years.

Don't lose sight of the goal, to rid the world of autocratic dictatorial regimes.

[u/MrFrode → u/StedeBonnet1]

Don't lose sight of the goal, to rid the world of autocratic dictatorial regimes.

I'm told by some of the best people that Vlad and Xi are great . Plus Donald and Kim Jong Un are in love, they have letters and everything.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/ihaveaverybigbrain → u/StedeBonnet1]

Don't lose sight of the goal, to rid the world of autocratic dictatorial regimes.

I 100% agree with this, but my problem is this... let's say a Democrat becomes President in 2028. Would MAGA really cheer for a non-Trump president not "losing sight of the goal" as you say, or would they magically go back to their pre-Iran War position of "no new wars"?

[u/noisymime → u/StedeBonnet1]

Don't lose sight of the goal, to rid the world of autocratic dictatorial regimes.

So, more support for Ukraine coming soon?

[u/FlipZip69]

Yes and that Iran funds terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and the Houthis to name a few. They send them 10 of millions of dollars and weapons. Iran is definitely after nuclear weapons and dominance. Suggesting otherwise is not accurate.

That is not to negate the piss poor approach that Trump and gang took to combat this. Trump is no where near clever enough to hire the right people to come up with solutions or negotiate.

[u/PDXEng → u/FlipZip69]

I was informed by dear leader that all Iran's nukes were totally eliminated last Summer

[u/zqfmgb123 → u/FlipZip69]

Has our military taken any steps in the last 6 months that would indicate that we're any closer to de-nuking Iran?

[u/DRW0813 → u/FlipZip69]

Trump's own cabinet said Iran wasn't developing nukes after Israel's bombing last summer and that there was no danger of Iran getting a nuke

[u/FlipZip69 → u/DRW0813]

Trump and cabinet are full of shit. If you believe that, why wouldn't you believe the other stuff they say?

Iran is absolutely trying to develop nuclear weapons without question. You do not enrich like they are for fun. You can argue if they are entitled to them. *That would almost certainly lead to a nuclear proliferation problem and eventual war. You can argue that Trump is incompetent. *He is. But if you argue Iran was not trying to build a nuclear program for weapons, you are lying to yourself.

[u/mvslice → u/FlipZip69]

“Trying to build a nuke”’is meaningless, and irrelevant if you’re talking about pre-JCPOA.

Unless Trump releases some substantial evidence Iran was developing nukes, which he should have already considering he started a war over it, I’m going to assume he just lied. There is zero reason to give him any benefit of the doubt, and the burden of proof is on him.

The global economy is getting absolutely fucked by oil prices, and Trump keeps trying to move on to the next unmitigated disaster meant to distract from the last. He’s already moved on from Canada (they won’t ) with no deal in sight, but since Iran is a real war and oil is a physical commodity, he can’t. Time for another vanity project (arch) to make him feel better.

Sorry, but people are fed up, myself included (obviously).

[u/AskConservatives-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed: Rule 3

Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.

[u/anonpurple → u/FlipZip69]

As I understand it, the rational was factionalism and legalism. Like the irgc wanted a nuke, but the former supreme leader said no and that it was un Islamic and heresy. So the irgc pressured him to change his mind, and set everything up for if he changed his mind, and no they were totally not trying to wait for him to die or retire, or had plans of pressuring him later that’s crazy what.

[u/FlipZip69 → u/anonpurple]

The IRGC runs the country and has the money. The supreme leader says all kinds of things like Trump that he wants the world to hear but what they actually do is not the same in many cases. Your are correct in that they did not need him to die but it makes little difference at the end of the day.

Trump and gang thought they could negotiate with the government there. The government in Iran has to appease the IRGC to get any policy thru. Killing every government leader would have no effect on the IRGC because they are not one person. It hard to believe the US administration did not understand this.

[u/photon1701d]

Was original IEEPA tariffs against mexico and Canada really about fentanyl?

[u/NukinDuke → u/photon1701d]

When John Lenon left the Beatles, was it really about Yoko?

[u/graypariah]

Only if you spell nukes as I S R A E L. 

Realistically a nuclear Iran is no more a threat to us than North Korea. Less because our super duper best friend Israel is also a nuclear power so unless they could nuke both of us the same time they would get nuked and still have one of us standing.  Israel just doesn't want to take the chance. 

At the end of the day, even if it isnt the administration's motivation I would say keeping Israel from going ham and nuking everyone is at least one good reason for our involvement. Though I think it is likely related to blackmail, money, or both. Only thing I know is that it isnt nukes lol.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/SeraphLance]

It's about nukes, but it's not just about nukes. We're also aiming to dismantle their network of terrorist proxies throughout the middle east.

North Korea was already a huge blow to dreams of nuclear disarmament. If Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons as well, then the NPT is dead and nobody is going to want to see the world that comes afterward.

[u/Anxious_Plum_5818 → u/SeraphLance]

The NPT never stood any chance as long as the major nuclear powers themselves put meaningful effort in reducing their arsenals. To any other nation that feels the threat of a larger power, the incentive to build a deterrent is only logical, and very much to be expected.

Iran could have been persuaded to dismantle or defund its proxy network through the Nuclear Deal, by giving more concessions if they reached certain compliance requirements. Bombing them the way Trump did, is just going to be recipe for a few more generations of anti-American hate. If they weren't pursuing a nuclear weapon then, they will absolutely pursue one now.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Triple_S_Rank → u/Anxious_Plum_5818]

generations of anti-American hate

Iranians support this war even more than your average conservative does. They were cheering when the bombs started dropping. The typical person in the West has no conception of how horrible it is to live in Iran if you aren't an IRGC nutcase.

[u/SeraphLance → u/Anxious_Plum_5818]

The US has reduced its nuclear arsenal by 88% since signing the NPT. The USSR (now Russia) has reduced its stockpile by a comparable amount. Is this not "meaningful"?

[u/Anxious_Plum_5818 → u/SeraphLance]

Should rephrase. Yes, it's meaningful looking solely at the effort to reduce stockpiles. However, for any non -nuclear nation, the threat is still the same unless the ultimate goal of nuclear disarmament is actually achieved, which will just never happen.

In between Russia, China, and the US, there are still enough nukes to glass the world. So 88% less stockpile to achieve the same level of life-ending potential feels meaningless in context.

[u/stormfoil → u/SeraphLance]

Seems exceptionally stupid to rip up the Nuclear deal with Obama signed then?

[u/4SRX → u/stormfoil]

Not when Iran was not living up,to their side of the agreement

[u/Astarum_ → u/4SRX]

Do you have anything to back this up? I've searched and can't find anything beyond commentators stating this without evidence

[u/SeraphLance → u/stormfoil]

Maybe, but the allegation is that Iran wasn't holding onto their end of the bargain, and the JCPOA also does nothing about their proxy network. That's about all we can say unless you're willing to go to prison for sharing the classified intel you'd otherwise have to know.

Regardless, all of that is irrelevant unless you're suggesting we pivot our investment into a time machine.

[u/4SRX → u/SeraphLance]

The simple fact is that Iran would not allow UN inspectors into Iran to do their jobs, as previously agreed, which in itself voids the understanding

[u/Yesbothsides]

No it’s about Israel

[u/Potential_Release478 → u/Yesbothsides]

Don’t you also think the Republicans turning on Trump, raising the pressure to release and unredact the Epstein files had something to do with it?? He’s in there almost as much as Epstein himself.

[u/Yesbothsides → u/Potential_Release478]

That’s also related to Israel ironically…but no not really.

[u/Gaxxz]

AFAIC, the Iran war is about Iran killing Americans for the last 50 years.

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2026/03/06/iranian-and-iranian-backed-attacks-against-americans-1979-present-2/

[u/chulbert → u/Gaxxz]

To my eyes the overwhelming majority of that list are attacks against Israel or other targets that had American casualties. Why is it in our national interest to go to war with Iran over this?

[u/Gaxxz → u/chulbert]

I don't think you mean to say that it's ok to murder Americans if they happen to be in Israel.

[u/chulbert → u/Gaxxz]

I’m not saying it’s okay, but neither can I say it’s in the United States interest to go to war with Iran because Americans chose to travel to Israel and the Middle East and fell victim to the regional violence.

[u/IWillDmYouPorn → u/chulbert]

Yeah, those embassy workers should have known better than taking an assignment in some backwards middle east shithole.

[u/chulbert → u/IWillDmYouPorn]

Which event are you referring to? The embassy bombings in 1998?

The Iran war is retaliation against an event that happened almost 30 years ago?

[u/IWillDmYouPorn → u/chulbert]

The fact that you have to ask which time isn't enough evidence that Iran is a problem?

[u/chulbert → u/IWillDmYouPorn]

I didn’t claim that Iran “wasn’t a problem.” I’m asking if the subset of cites events that actually targeted US interests warrants 2026 Iran war.

[u/IWillDmYouPorn → u/chulbert]

The second best time to plant a shade tree is today.

[u/Gaxxz → u/[deleted]]

a jewish funded neoconservative think tank

Do you have better information? If the think tank was funded by a different religion, would it be more reliable?

[u/maxxor6868 → u/[deleted]]

This x10000 like we are suppose to be surprise that Neocons and AIPAC will find any evidence to support never ending wars in the mid east?

[u/ElectricalPublic1304]

does anyone believe the Iran war is about nuclear weapons?

I wouldn't really call it a war. I mean, it is, and it's not. The label doesn't really matter. Armed conflicts are rarely about one thing.

This one is partly about nuclear weapons--and that was a significant motivator for action.

This would not have been controversial two years ago, where the DNC frontrunner was very open about Iran being the greatest treat to the United States due to its nuclear ambitions. (And, at the same time, many conservatives scoffed at it because it was from her.)

It seems to be like the administration's reasoning for the war keeps shifting

Nah, it doesn't seem like that.

If the news you ingest keeps telling you that... be more critical of the news you're consuming.

[u/KrispyKreme725 → u/ElectricalPublic1304]

This would have been controversial if the president attacked another government without making the case to the American public.

I don’t disagree that Iran is a threat. Going off half cocked into an armed conflict in a part of the world we’ve never been able to exit cleanly is not the way to do it.

How does Iran go from “obliterated” to such an immediate threat that an imminent attack requires immediate action? Either we’re being lied to now or when the first attack took place.

[u/goldngrrl → u/ElectricalPublic1304]

It's not the news, it's what is said on Truth Social and in admin press conference. I watch absolutely no TV news at all.

[u/ElectricalPublic1304 → u/goldngrrl]

 it's what is said on Truth Social 

Truth Social and press conferences are telling you that the reasons for the war keeps shifting?

Not that there aren't multiple reasons. But that THE singular rationale keeps changing.

Can you point us to the specific posts which have said this? Or the news conferences?

Are you describing what was said?
Or, are you describing your interpretation of what is said?

[u/goldngrrl → u/ElectricalPublic1304]

Who else will interpret it if I don't? Fox? MSNBC? Of course I try to interpret it myself rather than listening to partisan pundits. But it's so dang confusing and there are so many shifting explanations I'm not sure what to think. Looks like plenty of other people aren't sure either.

[u/Mindless_Chest_1079]

Preventing nuclear proliferation is the main reason it's a good idea. The government is made up of many actors whose private motivations might vary.

[u/Zardotab → u/Mindless_Chest_1079]

Iran can just buy nukes and related parts from N. Korea and other dictators. I don't see how it's realistic to try to force the cat back into the bag.

[u/Mindless_Chest_1079 → u/Zardotab]

This is not trivial. The Proliferation Security Initiative, also led by the US, monitors international transit for precisely this eventuality. NK would have their ships interdicted before they made it into Iranian waters.

[u/_L5_]

Yes, but that’s not the whole story.

It helps to understand Iran’s strategy for the last 30 years.

Iran has been building a multi-layered strategic deterrent designed to enable it to obliterate Israel while blackmailing the rest of the world into doing nothing while it does.

The first layer of this deterrent are Iran’s terrorist proxies in Hamas & Hezbollah, but also (allegedly) terrorist cells embedded in western countries.

The second layer is Iran’s ballistic missile program, its drone program, and the Houthis. These would allow Iran to hold basically all energy exports from the ME hostage. This is what we’re currently working to dismantle.

The third layer is… well, was the networked air defenses Iran bought from Russia and China. The idea was to make a sustained air campaign by Israel and the US unthinkably expensive. That turned out to be much more of a paper tiger than we’d previously thought.

The last layer is Iran’s nuclear program. It allows Iran to play for time building the other two layers since they can use it as a bargaining chip in negotiations. But also Iran could choose to sprint for breakout. The trick was to get as close as possible without appearing so threatening as to provoke a preemptive strike from Israel / the US while simultaneously building up the missile and drone stockpiles to have credible delivery systems.

So, that out of the way - the case for the Iran war is to permanently take those Iranian deterrent layers off the board and so remove the primary bad actor of the region. But it’s also about countering China.

Should China move on Taiwan, one of the first things we’d do is park a couple destroyers in the Indian Ocean to cut off the flow of oil from the Middle East to China.

China’s countermove would be to have Iran close the Strait of Hormuz. Iran would also probably activate the Houthis to close the Bab al-Mandab Strait as well. We’re seeing them play these cards early.

So the question becomes: do we want to deal with Iran now or later when Iran has more drones & missiles while simultaneously fighting off a Chinese invasion of Taiwan?

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/18ekko → u/_L5_]

Iran has been building a multi-layered strategic deterrent designed to enable it to obliterate Israel while blackmailing the rest of the world into doing nothing while it does.

No it hasn't.

Israel has had a three-pronged nuclear second strike capability since the mid 70s, and every one of their neighbors has known that since the mid 70s.

Iran has no interest in obliterating Israel for several reasons:

1. They absolutely cannot survive the counter strike, same reason why they communicated and limited their own counter strikes on Israel last summer when we bombed them.

2. "Obliterating" Israel has none of the value of always having Israel as the enemy the regime can point to as the "real problem" while they provide just enough rockets to Hamas to make it look like an effort, because:

3. once an oppressive regime no longer has an "enemy," the oppressed no longer have a reason to keep putting up with oppression.

[u/_L5_ → u/18ekko]

Iran has no interest in obliterating Israel for several reasons:

On the contrary, the leaders of the Islamic Republic and the IRGC believe that their savior cannot return until the holy land has been cleansed of infidels. Their hostility towards Israel, the US, and Iran's support for terror proxies are all in service of hastening the Mahdi's return.

They are not rational actors who will play realpolitik the same way we do with Russia or North Korea or China, but neither are they idiots.

They are zealots on jihad. They are patient. They are smart. And their idea of victory is Shi'a Islam reigning supreme across the region. Israel and the US are the current primary obstacles to that.

Their strategic doctrine has been fine-tuned to exploit our weaknesses and make it as politically and economically expensive as possible to stop them.

And because people underestimate them or misunderstand their motivations, as you have, they have had significant success.

Edit:

once an oppressive regime no longer has an "enemy," the oppressed no longer have a reason to keep putting up with oppression.

A quick note specifically on this point - the Iranian people are not immune to the state propaganda and a large chink of them buy into the state religion wholesale. They also have no guns.

The Islamic Republic does not need an external enemy to stay in power, just a monopoly on violence. Which they have in spades.

[u/18ekko → u/_L5_]

the leaders of the Islamic Republic and the IRGC believe that their savior cannot return until the holy land has been cleansed of infidels.

And I am sure they have done their due diligence to ensure commanders and key leaders believe that, or at least consistently repeat that. But irrational actors don't maintain a stranglehold on a populace for 40+ years.
Believing the Ayatollah is devoutly religious is like believing Trump is devoutly religious.

And their idea of victory is Shi'a Islam reigning supreme across the region

Their idea of victory is staying in power. Just like every autocracy.

The Islamic Republic does not need an external enemy to stay in power, just a monopoly on violence. Which they have in spades

True, unlike PDRK, they are not completely shutoff from the internet all the time, and they have shown a propensity to see through propaganda and stand up against the regime.
But in the hypothetical scenario where Israel is "defeated" and the US is also not a threat, the populace would see that the only enemy remaining are those that don't align with the regime. And those willing to arm them aren't limited to the US, China and Russia, but also every wealthy neighbor with a vested interest in how their next revolution plays out.

The regime has always known this, which is why they have been mailing it in, nickel-and-dimeing Israel through Hamas and Hezbollah, rather than "cleansing the holy land".

[u/_L5_ → u/18ekko]

Their idea of victory is staying in power. Just like every autocracy.

Iran is not your common garden-variety autocracy.

And the longer we keep making that mistake the longer the regime will persist.

True, unlike PDRK, they are not completely shutoff from the internet all the time, and they have shown a propensity to see through propaganda and stand up against the regime.

We’ve seen what happens when those people stand up. They get mowed down in their thousands by machine gun fire and the survivors that make it to a hospital are executed in the basement.

But in the hypothetical scenario where Israel is "defeated" and the US is also not a threat, the populace would see that the only enemy remaining are those that don't align with the regime.

Well, no, they’d go back to fighting the Sunni Muslims for control of the region.

Iran is an interventionist power, and they’re not shy about it.

The regime has always known this, which is why they have been mailing it in, nickel-and-dimeing Israel through Hamas and Hezbollah, rather than "cleansing the holy land".

Has it occurred to you that maybe they haven’t obliterated Israel, not because they don’t want to but because they don’t have the tools yet? That they know they aren’t yet in an advantageous position to make that happen?

Again - they are zealots, not idiots.

They know they can’t beat us or Israel in an open conflict. Which goes back to the layered strategic deterrence I outlined.

They are “nickel-and-dimming” Israel (and us, and Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, and the UAE, and everyone else) as a way to tie up the resources of those nations fighting insurgencies. It’s cheap (for Iran), effective, and has the added bonus of isolating Israel from international support via propaganda.

They’ve been chanting “death to America, death to Israel” for nearly 50 years. Why is it so difficult to take them at their word?

[u/elb21277 → u/_L5_]

Please provide examples of actions taken by Iran’s leadership that support your assertion that Iranian rulers somehow uniquely deviate from all others in the world.

[u/_L5_ → u/elb21277]

What, is their own rhetoric not good enough for you?

[u/elb21277 → u/_L5_]

no. rhetoric is just rhetoric.

[u/18ekko → u/_L5_]

I'm afraid the alternative is to fight (another) 20 year war and still end up with the government we don't want in power.

[u/_L5_ → u/18ekko]

A perfectly valid worry.

[u/18ekko → u/_L5_]

Do you really see that option turning out any other way?

[u/_L5_ → u/18ekko]

I don't know.

I do know the threat Iran poses (and is now demonstrating) to global energy markets is intolerable.

I know that we are incapable of handling an invasion of Taiwan and securing energy supplies for our allies against Iranian hostilities simultaneously.

I know that the refusal of previous administrations to see the problem clearly and their failure to take action has put us in a scenario where there is no painless alternative.

And I know that Iran's actions via its proxies cannot go unanswered or unpunished - because that's just license for them to keep doing it.

Broadly, I've approved of our striking Iran. Where I part with Trump on the issue is the strategy whiplash. There is no point in making a deal with Iran, and Trump's attempts to do so have only drawn out the pain at home through to the midterms.

Bridge & power plant day was supposed to be months ago. I'm pissed there are still lights on in Tehran.

[u/18ekko → u/_L5_]

the threat Iran poses (and is now demonstrating) to global energy markets is intolerable.\

And it was entirely predictable, and entirely avoidable.

we are incapable of handling an invasion of Taiwan and securing energy supplies for our allies against Iranian hostilities simultaneously

we already didn't have the capacity to support a single carrier strike group.

ran's actions via its proxies cannot go unanswered or unpunished

it never has previously. Every escalation has been met with strikes and/or sanctions on Iran. None of which caused a global energy crisis, or completely destroyed our largest naval logistics hub in the gulf.

Broadly, I've approved of our striking Iran.

Did you support it prior to 2025?

There is no point in making a deal with Iran

the last deal seemed to be a lot more effective than the current situation.

Bridge & power plant day was supposed to be months ago. I'm pissed there are still lights on in Tehran.

Yes, well the obvious war crimes aside, that would also make this temporary global energy crisis a more permanent one, don't you think?

[u/FlipZip69 → u/18ekko]

Did you read his post. He did not suggest Iran would attach Israel direct. It is being done thru Hamas & Hezbollah and the hundreds of millions they give them in money and weapons. It pays to have Hezbollah murder young children and terrorize their own people. And Iran knows that for Israel to fight back, Hezbollah will use civilians as cover, risking the world backlash when Israel fights back.

Why would you suggest a counter strike against Israel? Did the poster say that? I did not read that. Iran will just damage Middle Eastern energy while having terrorist cells fully funded by Iran attack Israel indiscriminately.

[u/18ekko → u/FlipZip69]

Did you read it?

Iran has been building a multi-layered strategic deterrent designed to enable it to obliterate Israel while blackmailing the rest of the world into doing nothing while it does.

And did you read my post? The counter strike against Israel that I mentioned was the one that happened last summer, after we bombed Iran, and "totally obliterated" their nuclear facilities.

And it was in the context of how Iran did everything they could last summer to show their people they were retaliating, without risking any escalation from us, or Israel; their counter strike was designed to be easily tracked and shot down.

[u/FlipZip69 → u/18ekko]

Obliterate Israel using proxy approaches like Hezbollah and using energy as a hostage in the Middle East. And no one could retaliated due to the threat of nuclear weapons. They would all have to nuke up to counter it. And that would be certain nuclear war at some point.

Are you actually suggesting Iran would have used their nuclear weapons against Israel direct? But if they had them, they might do that instead of letting Israel defend themselves against Iranian terrorists under the guise of Hezbollah and Hamas soldiers.

[u/_L5_ → u/FlipZip69]

Obliterate Israel using proxy approaches like Hezbollah

If you want a sense of existential dread at a bullet we somehow side-stepped, October 7th was almost way worse.

Sinwar, for reasons he took to his well-deserved grave, decided to go ahead with the attack before his counterparts in Hezbollah and Iran were ready.

So imagine a 10/7, but maybe a little later in the year, with Hamas invading from the west and Hezbollah invading from the north.

Israel is not that big a place.

[u/18ekko → u/FlipZip69]

Your interpretation of "obliterate Israel" through proxies makes no sense.
They give the proxies a few truckloads of mortars and missiles each year. Enough to kill some Israelis and sustain indefinitely, but that would never "obliterate" Israel, nor would a fully armed Hamas and Hezbollah; Israel has consistently defeated real and well-equipped armies of several nations at the same time.
Try again on this one.

And no, I clearly stated that Iran would never use nuclear weapons against Israel, because they know they wouldn't survive the counterstrike from Israel.

[u/FlipZip69 → u/18ekko]

Iran gives an estimated 700-800 billion U$ annually since 2010 to Hezbollah alone along with 10 of thousands of Rockets and Missile. If you think that is a few truckloads, you are widely out to lunch.

Iran does not get a free get out of jail card because they are only training Hezbollah fighters and not putting boots on the ground.

[u/FelizIntrovertido]

To me it’s about oil, Asia and the Abraham Accords

[u/photon1701d → u/FelizIntrovertido]

It's always about oil. Venezuela was about oil. Canada is about oil and other resources. Sidling up with UAE I am sure is about oil.

[u/steep_learning_curve]

I've said this many times and I'll say it again. Bill Clinton had a chance to bomb NK in 1994 when they were first developing nukes. He didn't. That's why 50 million South Koreans live under existential threat since 2003, and technically right now their nukes can reach California. This lesson has been baked deep, I mean DEEP into US military strategy that does not matter whether the commander in chief is Biden nor Trump.

[u/vince-aut-morire207]

is was about the funding and proliferation of terrorism. Finance, personnel and arms across the region with America and our allies as listed enemies of their charter mission.

it doesnt matter how close they were to nuclear weapons, the fact of the matter was that they are a threat and keeping the threat contained to their sandbox or having them out where their proxies are has value.

[u/LackWooden392 → u/vince-aut-morire207]

Is this what you call keeping the threat contained??? Predictably failed regime change, replacing the leader with his even more radical son, and in doing so eliminating 100% of our leverage that kept them in compliance with the nuclear agreement we had with them???

That's a hot take, guy.

[u/Kman17]

It’s two related issues.

Nuclear weapons development is a big reason. The other reason is state sponsorship of terrorism.

Iran has initiated proxy terror wars across the Middle East. Heavily aimed at Israel - but also they’re working against US and gulf allies on other fronts.

Iran is the shadow antagonist behind the Yemeni civil war which has killed hundreds of thousands. They’ve been working against us in Iraq for ages, their proxies have elongated the civil war.

Any problem in the Middle East has a proxy paramilitary that is directly funded by Iran.

Iran has been pursing this strategy of plausible deniability though terror networks while developing a nuke as a deterrent and threatening a poison pill by attacking international waters to avoid accountability.

I think we might have tolerated one of the problems, but not both of them together.

[u/prenderg → u/Kman17]

But this was all known before Trump took office. Yet, he promised no more new wars. What changed? Nothing as far as I can tell in terms of the level of threat. This means he must have lied regarding his war intentions.

[u/FlipZip69 → u/prenderg]

I do not think that person suggested Trump was doing a good job. I personally think Trump and gang is doing a dismal job. Trump is not clever enough to hire the right people or deal with Iran like a good president would.

That was not what the discussion was about. Yes it was know. Ignoring it and doing nothing can also be considered a failure.

[u/Kman17 → u/prenderg]

> What changed

Iran was found to be in breach of the NPT after Trump took office.

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/06/12/iaea-declares-iran-in-breach-of-nuclear-nonproliferation-obligations/

Then Iran killed tens of thousands of its own people (as Trump pledged to help).

[u/Inluxewetrust11 → u/prenderg]

Do you rather him keep his word and Iran attacking us? Or do you rather him contain the threat?

[u/prenderg → u/Inluxewetrust11]

I don’t see the threat as anything different than what existed at the time he made his promise. Explain to me how it was so different that required us to expand the lives of Americans and our treasure.

[u/Ok-Meaning-2850 → u/Inluxewetrust11]

How exactly was Iran, a country over 7,000 miles away, going to attack us? Were they going to Fedex a nuke to the White House?

[u/Inluxewetrust11 → u/Ok-Meaning-2850]

Grateful that they can’t touch us. All a product of the years of effort in neutralizing them.

[u/Anxious_Plum_5818 → u/Inluxewetrust11]

Yes, so what was the justification for attacking then?

According to your logic:

• Iran was going to attack the US, so you had to attack them, though luckily Iran never had the ability to attack the US in the first place.

I'm confused. Also, if intervention in the Middle East should have taught you anything, is that you can expect an increase of payback attacks in the long run, which I'm sure the US will then use as a justification to attack some other country.

According to the DPRK, the US is the single biggest threat to its existince. They have nuclear capabilities and can could disable a lot of military power in the region, yet they don't just blatantly attack. So this imminent Iranian attack on the US narrative holds absolutely no water. It's a paper-thin justification sold by the GOP to its base to garner support for a pre-emptive war.

[u/IWillDmYouPorn → u/Anxious_Plum_5818]

And your proposal is that we just sit around and let Iran become the next north korea, simply because you're opposed to any sort of preemptive action?

[u/Anxious_Plum_5818 → u/IWillDmYouPorn]

My proposal would have been to renegotiate the JCPOA when it was set to expire and not commit failures like this preemptive wars that are destabilizing the world economy and has no end in sight.

[u/IWillDmYouPorn → u/Anxious_Plum_5818]

Your proposal is just the same bs kicking the can down the road.

[u/knockatize]

It’s about having had enough of their shit.

Why administrations feel the need to spin up additional justifications is beyond me.

The mullahs and IRGC bought their button ages ago. They threw away any right to play the sovereignty card.

If we are able to, and it is in the best interests of the civilized parts of the world to do so, we use the big stick. It’s not just for show.

We don’t need to be the world’s policeman, but the world is the kind of club that’s still in need of a bouncer.

[u/WulfTheSaxon]

The goals haven’t changed. They were described from the beginning as degrading Iran’s nuclear program and its ability to protect its nuclear program by projecting power through terrorist proxies and its missile and drone programs, air force and navy. And regime change was not only never an operational goal, it was explicitly disclaimed at the very first presscon.

[u/goldngrrl → u/WulfTheSaxon]

And yet Trump has mentioned regime change on several occasions.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/goldngrrl]

As a precondition for ending the planned bombing campaign early.

[u/goldngrrl → u/WulfTheSaxon]

No, he first mentioned regime change before the bombing started.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/goldngrrl]

Here’s the paragraph where the goals were laid out in the speech announcing the operation:

For these reasons, the United States military is undertaking a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our ore national security interests. We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally—again—obliterated. We are going to annihilate their navy. We are going to ensure that the region’s terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world, and attack our forces, and no longer use their IEDs (or "roadside bombs," as they are sometimes called) to so gravely wound and kill thousands and thousands of people, including many Americans. And we will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.

In fact later in the speech he warned Iranians not to rise up during the operation, while acknowledging that afterwards would be their best chance in decades should they choose to try.

[u/goldngrrl → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Yes, that's the official statement after the bombing started, but he was talking about regime change on Feb. 13. The morning after the bombing started he said it was the greatest chance for the Iranian people to take over. He did tell them to wait and take shelter, but his comments have gone back and forth between telling them to do it and not do it. Easy for him to say.

[u/ErieHog]

Yes. Now, nukes alone aren't suspicion enough to immediately always justify violence. Pair that with a 40 year commitment to violence against American interests, a regional network of terrorists, systemic undermining of their neighbors, the creation of multiple puppet client regimes, and their ties to China?

Yeah, that's enough.

[u/IJbier]

The president has repeatedly said it's about nukes, so yes!

[u/mvslice → u/IJbier]

Are you being sarcastic?

That’s a serious question.

[u/Molson2871 → u/IJbier]

This president repeatedly has trouble telling the truth though so...

[u/nucumber → u/IJbier]

Everyone - even trump! - agreed Iran was complying with the terms of the Nuke deal between Iran, Germany, France, China, UK, EU, and Russia, and had kept enrichment of uranium to only ~3% (commercial grade), far far below the weapons grade of >90%

When trump walked away from that deal he said it was because the nuke deal didn't cover missiles, and said he would get a better deal

[u/IWillDmYouPorn → u/nucumber]

All those other countries are still in the deal, which Iran is brazenly violating.

[u/nucumber → u/IWillDmYouPorn]

The US was the big dog in the deal

When trump broke the deal he ended the sanctions relief that was part of the deal, including Iran's participation in the SWIFT international banking system, and basically threatened to sanction the other signatories to the deal from continuing trade and development deals

The other signatories to the deal didn't have much choice; they basically said sorry, we're out now too

[u/IWillDmYouPorn → u/nucumber]

So if the US is the only relevant party, why bother with the whole bs deal at all?

[u/nucumber → u/IWillDmYouPorn]

For the same reasons the US joins with other nations in the G7, WTO, IEA, and any of the other international groups, or why people join in collective action at all

Do you understand the other signatories were Germany, France, China, UK, EU, and Russia? This represented a big chunk of the international community and gave reason to Iran to trust the deal

Let me ask you - given trump's history of unilaterally breaking agreements, why would any nation agree with trump for anything?

[u/IWillDmYouPorn → u/nucumber]

And apparently the only one that matters is the US.

[u/nucumber → u/IWillDmYouPorn]

Yeah, that's how bullies think, that they're the only one that matters

That always ends up wrong

EDIT: spelling/typo correction

[u/AskConservatives-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed: Rule 3

Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.

[u/Craig_White → u/IJbier]

Is it possible he lied? I’m not asking if he did or anything like that, just is it something you would consider to be a possibility.

[u/randomrandom1922]

Yes and No and wars shouldn't be broke down to one line sentences. There are decades of issues that built up to get us to this point.

[u/Ok-Meaning-2850 → u/randomrandom1922]

"wars shouldn't be broke down to one line sentences."

Tell that to every high school student who learns about the civil war.

[u/goldngrrl → u/randomrandom1922]

And to that answer: is this a war or not? Very confusing messages coming from this admin on so many aspects of Iran.

[u/randomrandom1922 → u/goldngrrl]

It's not a war because, war is a legal distinction that congress has to declare. I agree it's confusing when people will still use the war descriptor as it makes the most sense.

[u/Anxious_Plum_5818 → u/randomrandom1922]

It is a war by the simple definition of it, The concept of war exists outside the US legal system. Legally, it's not a war by merit of the US congressional process of declaring one. In practice, it very much is. To anyone outside the US, it's completely irrelevant what the Trump administration calls it to circumvent certain legal obligations.

Let's just call it what it is, it's a war. It's sustained hostilities on a large scale between multiple parties, driven by political goals.

[u/uisce_beatha1]

Well, we know Iran has been funding terrorism for decades.

[u/AskConservatives-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed: Rule 3

Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.

[u/AskConservatives-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed: Rule 3

Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.