I already gave my suggestion. Of course it is up for debate if you think it is unfair, then we can still find more fair solution as long as we can stop for more countries to having nuclear weapon.
2026 Iran War Strategy and Analysis
- Thread starter plawolf
- Start date
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
It is the definition of unfair to put restrictions on one but not the other.
It's really not that complicated or negotiable. Either they both have nukes or neither. Or they have the same restrictions on their nukes. You seem to think that Israel can't be restricted but Iran can. Then you have to either accept that your suggestions are unfair or you have to accept that we cannot stop more countries like Iran from having nuclear weapons. I told you what's truly fair; Israel gives back all the land they ever took including in their founding and there is no more nuclear or non-nuclear Israel. Thieves and robbers don't get to keep any loot in a resolution that is fair and Iran no longer needs nukes. That is fair, even if you think it is unrealistic... at least before Pax Sinica.
Iran is a country that has lived under a fatwa prohibiting nuclear weapons for decades; they were still attacked by the US and Israel. I have never seen a country that is more justified or in need of a nuclear weapon in defense. It is arguably fair to put restrictions and punishments on the perpetrators but not on the victims/defenders. But you have it the other way around.
Last edited:
Who the F**k is WE
Current reality is Iran's potential possession of nuclear weapon will restrain Israeli aggressiveness and restore balance of power and stability.
You’re still dodging the core point again:
You can't argue that Israel possessing nuclear weapons is an acceptable, stabilizing reality, while Iran possessing them would suddenly become an unacceptable existential danger.
Either nuclear deterrence is inherently illegitimate for everyone, or you are selectively deciding which state is “allowed” permanent military supremacy & which one is not.
So, the issue clearly is not “nobody should have nukes." The issue is that you accept Israel having them but reject Iran having the same deterrent capability.
That is not a universal principle. It is selective legitimacy dressed up as non-proliferation.
As I said before, in the current world order it is still unrealistic to achieve what you want like remove Israel from Middle East and ask Israel to dismantle its nuclear weapon. That's why I said before, it is an impossible thing to do currently.
My suggestion is for us to settle current conflict, what is in front us that is more make sense to be achieved. Iran gets what it wants although not directly run by Iranian. US and Israel gets what they want. They all at least get partially what they originally want.
A compromise where both parties at least get something is the middle ground. It doesn't fix the historic injustices or satisfy the ideological desires of either side, but it stops the bleeding.
If Iranian can be patient, who knows maybe as you said in Pax Sinica world order, Iran does not even need nuclear weapon anymore.
Last edited:
I don't think I am dodging the core point.
In a perfectly fair world, you are probably right, nuclear rules should be applied to everyone equally. But it is a reality right now, in the current world order, you are asking an impossible thing to do.
I am suggesting we should look for a way out of this conflict.
As I said before, opposing Iranian nuclear weapon isn't being selective dressed up as non-proliferation, this is an effort to prevent the region from becoming a nuclear arms race.
Then be consistent.
If Israel’s nuclear arsenal is now an “irreversible reality” the world must accept, then Iran reaching the same point would also become an irreversible reality once achieved. You cannot logically defend permanence for one & permanent prevention for the other.
And stop framing this as “both sides equally trying to stop the bleeding.” One side already holds overwhelming military superiority, undeclared nuclear weapons & full Western backing despite all its atrocities, while the other has spent decades under sanctions, sabotage, assassinations threats of attack.
The region only has two logically consistent paths:
Either Israel dismantles its nuclear monopoly, or Iran eventually acquires its own deterrent capability.
Anything else is simply demanding permanent strategic vulnerability from one side while legitimizing permanent supremacy for the other & constantly destabilized region.
If you don't mind my cynism, you enter nuclear club by being cunning, bold and decisive, not by being beaten.
Otherwise, existing members don't really like spread of their privilege.
IMHO, for Iran to have enough deterrence, it does not need to be with nuclear weapon.
For example, make an arrangement where maybe China can provide advanced weapons like what China already provided Pakistan with J-10 and HQ-9, and later on Pakistan will also get J-35A and HQ-19 or any other type of weapons that Iran want to defense itself.
This will be my last post regarding this. I think I already made enough point for why there should be no Iran (or any other countries) with nuclear weapon which will potentially create a chain of reaction in the region and in the world.