> while at the same time arguing for their right to have nuclear weapons...

Iran has no right to nuclear weapons. It has a right to nuclear energy. The challenge of non-proliferation has always been finding a way to let a country have one but not the other. It's a tricky and subtle problem, but it's not like we just realized this yesterday. There is a huge international framework in place for precisely this purpose.

> It is admirable, that you wish to apply the "innocent until proven guilty" principle even to foreign regimes, but it is also naïve. Even in the legal system and offender on probation has to continuously prove innocence...

I never said "innocent until proven guilty." I'm saying we don't know yet. Sure, we can assume that they are building a nuke, but unfounded assumptions are dangerous and can have disastrous consequences. The most rational course of action is to close off all paths to a nuke, while letting them keep nuclear energy so they don't have an excuse to just take their entire program underground. That's why we have nuclear negotiations.

About your boring rhetoric on Obama, I'm not American so I don't care, really. Take your rants somewhere else.

> if you don't think iran is building a nuclear weapon you have reached a level of naive idiocy beyond contempt

Say that to Mossad.

> i don't care if you think it is ok for them to build one, or not ok. it doesn't matter if you think they deserve a nuclear weapon or not

I don't think it's ok for them to build one, you lunatic.

Aqa Mohammad Khan (founder of the Qajar dynasty) famously said, "If you want to govern Iran the only way is to make sure the people are illiterate and hungry."

Wrong... about what? I don't even know what I'm supposed to be refuting.

I never said Persia didn't attack anybody. They attacked and killed loads of people during their long history.

I'm just saying it's preposterous to think they would risk everything just to kill some infidels. And it is. Every informed person agrees on this.

If you're going to make the claim that current Iranian leaders are the same as Hitler, you're going to have to offer an argument with a bit more substance than "They're both bad guys, they must be the same!"

It's insane to think Iran would open up its military facilities for inspection. No country has ever willingly done that except those that have surrendered unconditionally after defeat in war (such as Imperial Japan). It would essentially mean Iran gives up its right to exist as an independent sovereign nation.

And they don't need to, anyway. Just monitor their supply chain of nuclear materials. That's what the current deal does.

If you think about it, a military base is a stupid place to build a bomb anyway. There are a million other places that are less obvious and easier to hide. Those insisting that Iran open up its military sites are insisting on something they know Iran won't do so as to derail the deal. Their intentions are not sincere.

Christians AND jews.

Anyway, Iran doesn't scare me. What scares me are the warmongering far-right lunatics who think it's a good idea to bomb Iran.

It is true. And I not only think they will try to skirt the deal, I 100% trust that they will attempt something devious. And that's why there are verification measures in place in addition to the implicit understanding that the deal will be renewed after it expires. The deal all but ensures Iran will not have a nuke. Any other pathway (including bombardment) would lead to Iran probably having a nuke. You really think you can do better than professional scientists, diplomats, and disarmament experts?

> Remember, the Koran promotes lying to infidels to gain their trust before back-stabbing them.

This has nothing to do with religion. Every country will turn its back on a deal if it thinks it can benefit from doing so. Again, this changes nothing.

Unlike ISIS, Iran is a country that has existed continuously for 2500 years. I highly doubt they would self-immolate just for a chance to 'nuke the infidel.' Even Israeli intelligence agencies have looked at Iran and concluded that, despite the sabre-rattling, they are rational agents with self-preservation as a primary concern.

I guess America's only true experts in nuclear weapons production - the scientists at LLNL and LANL - must have been wrong then when they analyzed the Iranian nuclear deal and concluded it would eliminate all paths to a nuclear weapon. Thank's Tablizer, you have enlightened me with your knowledge of nuclear weapons.

> They are trying to build a nuclear weapon

Prove it.

So far everyone who has tried to prove this claim - including the CIA and Mossad - has come up short.

There's simply no evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. At most, they might be retaining the ability to develop a nuclear weapon in the future should the need arise.

Don't get me wrong. The mullahs are no saints. The Iranian regime is tyrannical and brutal. But realize that the propaganda machine is using the WMD line to trance you into gearing up for war, just like they did for Iraq. And you know the scary part? Even after you said you'd never be fooled again, IT'S WORKING.

No, economic reality fixed this problem. Once the true costs of nuclear came to light - the cost of proper safety, disposal of waste, and decommissioning - investors in energy projects started backing away from nuclear.

I agree that the public is too paranoid about nuclear power, but believe it or not that's not the reason why the world isn't nuclear powered yet. The reason is because nuclear power is just insanely expensive. Even in the 70's (they heyday of 'Nuclear power is the future!', before Chernobyl and TMI and Fukushima) the rate of new reactor construction was too low to even keep up with increasing demand. And the rate is much much lower today.

> Wind and solar, while nice and clean, probably aren't going to ever be capable of delivering all the power the world needs/wants.

They are capable of delivering far more power than we'd ever need on this planet.

> Most here are science types, and realize there is only one thing that can be done with it. Burn it up.

'Burning it up' is obscenely expensive. Deep geological storage is by far the safest and most economically sound solution.

I'm the first to agree that a lot of current regulation on the nuclear industry is too choking and limiting. For instance, the constraints on getting new nuclear reactor designs approved. However, a lot of the regulation really is necessary. You need several layers of containment around your reactor and this is the main reason building a reactor is expensive. You need to dispose of your waste safely. Deep geological storage is probably the best option. Once your reactor's life ends, you can't just let it sit around. You need to decommission it carefully and this too is expensive.

Unless you're comfortable with half the population being born with birth defects, you need to do nuclear safely. Nuclear reactions being an inherently messy business, is expensive to do safely. There's no getting around that.