By Robert Goldston, Guest Contributor and Member of the Council for a Livable World Board On March 15, 2026, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Margaret Brennan of CBS Face the Nation, “I offered actually that we are ready to dilute those enriched material, or down-blend them, as they...
armscontrolcenter.org
I wouldn't expect most people to read the entire article, so below is the meat. If you don't think Iran is FULLY committed to becoming a nuclear power I don't what to tell you. I know you're a smart guy and I'm surprised at this stance.
Becaus, intent is irrelevant without opportunity and capability. It's the Golden Triangle of Deadly Force, ask any LEO. Just because someone INTENDS you harm, that means nothing. They have to have the opportunity AND capability to act on it to be considered a threat.
Without any of the three elements of opportunity, intent, and capability, there is no justification for use of deadly force. They have demonstrated intent, but neither of the other elements, therefore they cannot be classified as an imminent threat under the very own rules we hold ourselves to.
You don't get to pull the trigger on someone just because they intend to make you dead. They have to have an opportunity to act and the capability to follow through to be considered an actual threat. For example, just because Cowboy doesn't like me and wants to kill me doesn't mean I get to drive over to his house, shoot him, and say it's self defense and justified solely because he wants me dead.
Hell, I'll even waive the opportunity requirement since nukes are so final. Even with JUST intent and capability, they fall short. Unless you can demonstrate the capability, it doesn't work. And thats supposedly what the first strikes were about, no? Removing their capability? And those were supposedly such a rousing success they were set back years, right?
Quite the pickle they put themselves in. Either they lied and their intelligence was bullshit then, or they lied and their intelligence is bullshit now. Either way, they're lying and feeding me shit and I don't believe them until they trot out irrefutable proof that Iran had nuclear strike capabilities that they were ready and able to act on. And that's their fault I don't believe them.
You acknowledge their role in terrorism but seem to minimize it by citing 40 years of history. Why?
You say nothing has changed. On their side, yes. On our side, it has. Trump is fighting against it, not aiding and abetting like Obama. Enough is enough. Bomb them into oblivion.
Because we've lived in that goddamn corner of the world for the last twenty years and didn't do a damn thing about it.
It's like being out at a bar where a guy is trying to pick a fight with you all night but you do nothing. Then you leave, go home, decide "you know what, enough is enough!" So you drive back to the bar the next day and start kicking the shit out of the guy. What changed since you left? Why now? Why not when you were already RIGHT THERE if they're such a threat that needed to be dealt with?
If Iran were such a threat and problem, why not deal with them when we had control of
two countries that literally bracketed them, with more air based and support than you could shake a stick at?
And don't point at Obama. This wasn't just him. We had Dubya. We had Trump 1.0. We have had a grand total of
SIX Presidential terms, split evenly across both parties, between the supposed justification and the taking action. Yeah, no. That doesn't fly. That just looks like a thinly veiled vengeance play, and I'm not about that. I'm not down for spending today's money and lives to simply salve some bullshit yokels' wounded pride from the insults and transgressions of yesteryear.
I agree, Iran needed the shit kicked out of them. Twenty years ago. We decided to pass for whatever reason. We don't get to drive back to the bar now, once we FINALLY broke free of that shithole, and start kicking the shit out of them and pretend it's justified now by what they did in the past.
As to the AUMF, don't nit pick. The intent was/is clearly to enable POTUS to defend the country against terrorism and that is what he is doing. Sunni vs. Shia doesn't matter in this context. Yes, you have a political argument and I expect it will be hashed out in the political arena but come 2027 Thomas Massie will not be around to participate. Mwhahaha.
Well, first off, if you think Sunni and Shiite doesn't matter in this context, you don't know the Middle East. Cuz that alone should inform you a great deal about Iran's relationship with al-Qaeda. And that relationship matters a LOT if you're trying to invoke the 2001 AUMF. You don't get to just wave the "meh, they're both Muslim and like terrorists, close enough" banner and call it good. The wording was specific for a reason and our very own 9/11 Commission said Iran had no advance notice of the attack.
And more importabtly, what do you mean don't nitpick, it's the fucking
LAW! The
EXACT THING that is
SUPPOSED to be nitpicked!!!
That AUMF was not a carte blanche in perpetuity for a President to do whatever tf they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want, and say "it's related to 9/11 terrorism because they're brown, do bad things, and are roughly in the same area as the same guys twenty five years ago. Close enough."
That is not how our laws work, that is not how our Constitution works, and that is absolutely not how America is supposed to operate in any way shape or form. That's Russian style realpolitik bullshit. We are not that. We are a country of laws, and every man, from the President to the lowest pauper is beholden and accountable to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The separative work required to further enrich Iran’s stockpile of 60% enriched uranium to so-called “weapons-grade,” or 90%, is only 564 SWU, about 1% of the 55,330 SWU committed already. While press coverage has indicated that it is a short technical step from 60% enrichment to 90%, perhaps it is not evident to the public that 99% of the work needed to enrich the full stockpile to 90% has already been performed.
Ok great, fantastic. And I say again, SHOW ME they had the capability to ACTUALLY do this when we attacked. I'm not a nuclear scientist but I'm pretty sure you can't do that in your bathtub with shit you grab at the hardware store.
Because we were told they lost that capability. Not just the facilities, but the scientists too, remember? Either they did, and we don't need to be there, or they didn't, and the administration needs to eat the shit for being wrong and conducting ineffective strikes. Regardless we are far past the point of "trust me bro, they bout to get some nukes."
I think if if they had that proof, Trump would be on every news channel showing it, while simultaneously trying to stuff it up Europe's collective ass. Instead of that, we get limp dick throwback excuses to Iran from the eighties and vague promises that they had nukes.
www.ynetnews.com
