“Death to America” does not constitute a slightly different world view. They are perfectly reasonable in their pursuit of nukes, and we’re perfectly reasonable in stopping them. When someone repeatedly says “we want to drop a nuke on people” you believe them and do what it takes to stop them.
So were they going for nukes or not? Because your first comment seemed to claim they weren’t interested in nukes, but now you seem to claim they were justified in going for nukes this whole time.
(For the audience, Iran has been interested in nukes since at least the 90s, but has been prevented from getting one by lots of outside actors.)
There is no reason to be weeks away from an atomic bomb unless you’re interested in building a bomb. Tulsi was wrong about the timeline, but they were/are doing all the things a country interested in building a bomb would do.
Brother, you can’t say “Iran and Russia have a defense pact” and then laugh and pivot to China after I point out Russia is not going to be able to make good on that pact. You haven’t earned the right to be arrogant if you never mentioned China in your first comment. I wasn’t talking about China. But now that your mention China…
China is not currently interested in a proxy war to defend a middle eastern ally of convenience. They’re gearing up to invade Taiwan. They will leave Iran to fend for itself, like how Russia let Syria collapse.
In all likelihood, Iran is gonna be forced to just take the L and do a bit of posturing.
Russia is incapable of coming to the aid of Iran at the moment.
That is literally what the argument is caused by, adaptive perception to lighting conditions.
So… Yes, but we still can’t allow them to have the ability to take out an entire city in one strike. Sucks, I know, but there are lines.