I've always wondered what President Obama was thinking when it came to the Iran nuclear deal he and his Secretary of State, John Kerry, came up with.
To me, it seemed like it was always going to lead to Iran going nuclear, and there's no way the Gulf states (who hate and fear the Islamic Republic of Iran, with the Persians reciprocating those warm feelings), starting with Saudi Arabia, won't go nuclear in response.

I've never understood how people continue to believe that it was the lifting of sanctions that would lead to Iran getting a nuclear weapon. The U.S first introduced sanctions against them in 1979 and then in response to their expansion, expanded those sanctions in 1995. During those years and up to 2016, Iran developed a nuclear program and were getting close to developing a weapon, while the sanctions were in place.

So, then Obama and Kerry, realizing the sanctions in place for the past 37 years have had zero impact on the nuclear program try something different and the response is that Obama and Kerry are responsible for Iran's nuclear program...it is really hard to understand that logic.

India and Pakistan have avoided a major war since they both obtained the weapon. There are already 9 countries with nuclear capability (if you include North Korea) so it's a growing list and not that exclusive anymore. Since Israel is a nuclear power, Iran will get them and then of course, Saudis will follow suit. That would make it 11 countries so it's getting harder and harder to control things.

Since sanctions never worked on Iran or North Korea and countries like Pakistan have it, maybe the threat is overblown.

We just need Operation Opera II.

---

Pink? Maybe. Maybe not. You decide.

Were the sanctions not passed with overwhelming bipartisan support?

What would you have done in Obama's situation such that right now Iran and North Korea would have no nuclear weapons?

Because then we can tell Trump and he can just do those things, and then we'll be all good. We can be a new think-tank/policy center. The Lavender Room Center for a Nuclear Free World Except Our Nukes Which We Have a Shit Ton.

On some level, at least it would be them bombing them. I realize we would jump in, but they would bear the brunt of it.

So, the argument is that having yet two more nations -- both with serious and severe internal problems, as well as difficulties in getting along with their neighbors -- getting nuclear weapons probably doesn't amount to much of an increase in the calculus?

Two words: "Critical mass."

Hey, that works on two levels. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."