I think that this Iranian regime is eventually going to acquire nuclear weapons.

[everyonematters]

Then we will be left with hopping they don't use them in unilateral strikes. The fact that they can shut down the Strait of Hormuz has dramatically changed the equation. They are using the negotiations to get their sanctioned money back. They will keep asking for more money. Once they get all of it back, what is the reason for negotiating? I can think of two options that might stop it: One is finding a way through some technical advance to stop them from closing the strait. The second is multiple countries coming together and conducting a D Day like invasion and taking it all the way to Tehran, taking out the leadership. That would take the kind of leadership from Trump that he has never displayed, and he has already alienated many of our allies. The US could not do it alone.

It is the prevailing view that this regime cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons because they are irrational and a threat to world peace.

This whole can of worms was opened up because Trump blundered his way into this war without adequate planning or leadership. He did not consult with most of our main allies or congress. He did not attempt to inform the American people of the need for military action or any sacrifice, so the reaction from the public is understandable.

[RockRaven]

1. Yep, and soon (in the big picture sense anyway).

Maybe not in the next two-and-a-half years, though. It would be perfectly on brand for The Dotard to make that mess land in the lap of the next guy/gal.

[Renew Deal]

2. That's the PNAC extremist argument for what should happen

"Invade Iran" is chickenhawk BS. Yes, Iran shouldn't have a nuke, but only the most extreme and insane advocated for invading Iran. It would take more troops than are available. It would take months at minimum to complete. And there was no support for it in the US and elsewhere. I fail to see how people advocating for invading Iran are considered the "rational" actors.

[everyonematters]

9. They could have had the same attitude about D Day. The difference is, they had already invaded

other countries. Iran just facilitates attacks. That might change. I agree there is no appetite for it now. That might change. If enough countries buy in, I think it could be done.

[multigraincracker]

3. A quick deal with North Korea.

Anything in the deal to prevent them from a purchase? NK needs the money.

[David__77]

4. "This regime" that's a threat to peace is the US, which indeed started the war.

[indusurb]

5. Frankly the best thing for everybody might just be to let them develop a nuke

Nukes are about the most useless weapons in the world. The only thing they're good for, aside from eating up money in maintenence and upgrade costs, is to serve as a deterrent. That's it, nobody is going to use one offensively because if they do, others will rain nuclear fire down on them. He dies, she dies, everybody dies and nobody wants that, even the craziest regimes out there. At one time we were worried about Pakistan getting a nuke, yet they did, and they recognize that if they drop it, nuclear capable India, along with others, will bomb the shit out of them. Then everybody was worried about the crazy Kim's in N. Korea getting a nuke. Yet now they have them, and Kim Jong Un recognizes he and his country will be nuked to glass if they drop the big one on S. KoreI.

Iran is not stupid, they recognize that if they launch a nuke at Isreal, the US or anybody else they're about ten minutes away from annihilation. They simply want the security of having a deterrent, since Israel and US both keep rattling that nuclear Saber at them. So I say let them have their nuclear security blanket, I think in the long run it would be the best thing going.

[Disaffected]

6. Fine in theory but,

the risk of accidental nuke launch must also be taken into account and the more countries with nukes, the greater that risk becomes. Also, the greater risk of nukes falling into the hands of terrorists (which also greatly diminishes the MAD (mutually assured destruction) deterrent effect).

And, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the incentive for other middle east countries would become irresistible thus further compounding the risks....

[everyonematters]

8. That is the big question about this regime. Do they want it for leverage or to use it?

[Matthew28]

7. I think they could easily do it

They could ask Putin or Kim jong un for some...They don't have to do make themselves. Putin has 5,500. So he could give a dozen or more tomorrow.