n/t

That seems like it should be a boundary.

As is the right of every other country in the world.

Outside interference for whatever reason, is rejected.

The Big Stick approach doesn't work.
Never did, never will.

...depend on desalination, if they can build the infrastructure.

That takes energy.

Iran has native deposits, not necessarily high quality, of uranium.

There are many Iranians who hate their government; one of my colleagues and friends is among them.

However, I hate my government as well, as do many people around the world hate my government, led by an orange pedophile. That doesn't mean that Iran has the right to dictate my energy infrastructure.

We are, after all, led by a known convicted criminal supported by Christian nationalists.

How is it that you know how highly enriched Iranian uranium is?

As I recall, a major war, in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed using fossil fuel based weapons of mass destruction was motivated by a nuclear scare story involving claims about uranium enrichment.

It turned out to be bullshit, and all those lives were lost for a specious and dishonest claim.

...highly corrupt, barely sane, pedophile suffering from dementia.

Is the United States honoring all of its treaties? How about treaties on the collapse of the planetary atmosphere?

However most sane people prefer hardline fundamentalists Islamic Mullahs not have access to nuclear weapons.

Their views on, say, women's rights are not entirely different, albeit the scale is worse in Iran, but the direction is equivalent.

The United States is rapidly becoming a pariah country.

I may hold a different opinion on the distinction between Iran and the United States than other people, but that's just me maybe.

It does seem to me - and I understand nuclear technology extremely well - that 480 kg of 60% enriched uranium isn't very much.

I oppose all nuclear weapons; but I also oppose all dangerous fossil fuel weapons, the latter of which killed vastly more people even in the only nuclear war ever observed, the oil war between the United States and Japan between 1941 and 1945.

However. If I were the Iranian government, which is possibly only slightly more insane than our government is right now, I would rather shrug off the hypocrisy.

The observed effect of nuclear standoffs - and let's be clear people seem to enjoy bombing Iran these days - is that people become scared of fighting major wars. That may be the reason that the Iranians are trying to put a scare into their enemies.

I'm not saying I endorse the Iranian government, nor do I endorse the decidedly less than sane American government, which has enough nuclear weapons to end life on Earth, but I do understand why they might wish to possess a nuclear weapon. I don't approve of nuclear weapons, as stated above,

Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, and occasionally their militaries shoot at each other, but they don't have nuclear wars.

I sometimes wonder if the nuclear standoff between the United States and the former Soviet Union prevented a dangerous fossil fuel war.

It may be that nuclear weapons and the possession of them has a sobering effect that the inventor of poison gas warfare, Fritz Haber, (who won the Nobel Prize for making it possible to supply billions of people with food to eat) thought poison gas might have, to make people afraid of having wars. I'm not arguing in favor of that case, nor do I find it acceptable, but I certainly understand the rationale.

The United States is collapsing into an international pariah. We have no ethical standing to complain about Iran.

For the record, for decades, almost all of the world's research reactors in universities and the like, used 95% enriched uranium.

They no longer do, but it was the case for decades. The number of nuclear wars that have resulted from highly enriched uranium has been one for more than 80 years.

Also known as a "red herring".

There is absolutely nothing analogous between the US and Iran. Shame on you.

Would it be Iran or the United States?

I have noted elsewhere that I have a very jaundiced view of moral justifications I hear around here on war. I oppose the right of countries to bomb other countries based on sanctimonious suspicions of other's intents.

I do understand that others are very smug in their claims of moral superiority.