Share.

28 Comments

  1. thenewrepublic on

    >The United States and Israeli strikes against Iran [began only hours ago](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/28/world/middleeast/trump-iran-strikes-video.html), but there’s already one clear lesson for the rest of the world: If you have a nuclear weapon, you are safe from potential U.S. attack, and if you don’t have a nuclear weapon, you are vulnerable. In 2018, President Trump violated a multilateral nuclear agreement—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran—that was working. Less than a decade later, he has decided with no sound legal or military justification to launch a barrage of military strikes with the apparent aim of toppling the Iranian regime. This is the clearest but by no means only example of a country without a nuclear weapon falling victim to illegal American military attack. The long-term consequences will likely be a large-scale increase in the number of countries who possess nuclear weapons, something that will undermine American and global security for generations to come.

  2. This is the same debate people had after the U.S. pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Whether you liked the deal or not, it at least created guardrails. Once that was gone, escalation became way easier.

  3. Imaginary-Ad-7919 on

    Donald Trump have always been dangerous and he is not the man that make the world a better place.

  4. Romantic_Piscean on

    Nine nations have nuclear weapons – Russia, the United States, China, France, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea. If you’re a nation not allied with the US, the question is whether you’re allied with a nation that would defend you. And if you’re allied with the US, Trump is clearly willing to change even long-standing assumptions. All bets are off these days. 

  5. The subject isnt about Trump or today. Its 3 nuclear powers invading a Ukraine that gave up nukes. Its about US security guarantees not worth the paper they are printed on.

    Everyone needs nukes. Deterrence stops war full stop. I pick a failure to respond to Russia releasing Novichok and murdering EU citizens as the end of deterrence.

  6. Brilliant-Lake-9946 on

    A Republican President just started an unjustified war?

    Who could have predicted that?

    Aside from everyone who was alive in 2003.

  7. just_a_lazy_loser on

    this headline isn’t some overreaction, it literally feels like we woke up in a timeline where every move abroad turns into an existential crisis.

    whether or not you like the guy, framing a policy choice as “making the world more dangerous” is exactly the tone people react to.

  8. just_a_lazy_loser on

    the weird part is how quickly the shock meter resets — yesterday it was tension rising, today it’s “much more dangerous.”

    like we went from mild unease to apocalypse vibes in one headline scroll.

  9. Calm_Chemist_4952 on

    Another war without a declaration from congress. The downhill acceleration continues. The absolute worst president of all time must be removed from office.

  10. While yes, fuck this admin, hasn’t this always been the case? Iraq backed down on nuclear weapons and Dubya invaded. Libya backed down and Obama enabled regime change. Ukraine made agreements to hand over theirs in return for safety guarantees that weren’t worth the paper they were written on. North Korea is an international pariah but nuclear weapons guarantees their security.

    Nuclear weapons are the only thing that guarantees national sovereignty from major powers and it’s been true for decades. We’ve done this to ourselves.

  11. Kaffe-Mumriken on

    I’m not gonna cry about the murdering regime in Iran, but this is a “some of you may die” scenario I don’t think we should be in.

    A lot of people who never signed up for this will pay dearly.

  12. Rubio looked very somber and stressed at the SOU. When Trump complimented him, he was almost despondent.

  13. Decent_Cheesecake_29 on

    That’s been US foreign policy for decades. If you want national sovereignty, you have to subjugate yourself to the US or have your own nukes.

  14. KnownAsAnother on

    Remember when people voted for him for “cheaper eggs” and “no new wars?” I do because I have never voted for that lying piece of shit and I’m furious that 77 million Americans fell for the grift *again.*

  15. gonna_get_tossed on

    This is one of those situations where I think liberals can hold two thoughts at the same time.

    On one hand, the Iranian regime is brutal. They sponsor terror outside of their borders. And they are equally brutal as suppressing any opposition within – recently having excited 30K protesters. In addition, the Iranian people are overwhelmingly opposed to the regime (80+%). So the world and Iran would be better off if the Iranian regime did not exist and that is unlikely to happen without direct intervention by foreign powers.

    On the other hand, we can criticize the administration for the execution of the plan. Not seeking congressional approval. Timing of the strike. Potentially putting Americans lives at risk if there is a ground invasion.

    Ultimately I don’t have a problem with targeted strikes that make it possible for Iranians to take control of the government. But I am pretty firmly opposed to a “boots on the ground” campaign. I am open to a UN peace keeping mission after the current regime is overthrown to restore some sense of order while a new government is formed.

  16. Made_Human_Music on

    I wonder how the anti American trash who voted for him because they wanted cheap gas are going to feel when gas prices skyrocket soon? At least they can fall back on the cheap groceries… oh, wait

  17. MithrandirMaia on

    Duh, we already showed security guarantees are worth bupkiss, look at Ukraine who gave up Nukes for our guarantee of security. If you don’t want to be Ukraine or Iran you need nukes and a lot of em ASAP. Australia, Japan, Germany, South Korea especially as USA is a pretty unpredictable Ally under It’s current dictatorship

Leave A Reply