Every international body had checked, and confirmed that Iran had no intention of building nuclear weapons. Even to this day. Even after what Israel and US did.
Netanyahu has been saying Iran in minutes away from building nuclear weapons since early 2010s.
Never mind those facts. Let's say they are building weapons. What gives the US the right to build enough nuclear weapons that they could destroy the world multiple times over, but Iran cannot? Why is the US funding terrorist groups, but Iran cannot? Just cos they're the big bad boogeyman? Don't you think it'd be better to normalise relationship with them so that they become friendly? So that even if they are building weapons, they wouldn't use it against us because they're allies?
> What gives the US the right to build enough nuclear weapons that they could destroy the world multiple times over, but Iran cannot?
Already having nuclear weapons, being a superpower and the center of the post-WW2 and post-Cold-War world, being able to fight 2 ground wars simultaneously, etc.
The relationships between countries is governed by nothing other than might makes right, and any seemingly altruistic cooperation between the hegemon and its lessers only occurs because the hegemon benefits more.
Hi I'm Kurdish. I'm 100% aware, heck my mother still cries in front of me remembein some of the horrors she saw. I'm also aware that we, the Kurds, have arguably benefited the most from that war. But that does not negate the fact that the US lied about Saddam having WMDs.
A New York Times investigation by C.J. Chivers revealed that the dismantlement of Iraq’s CW program was not as clear-cut as originally thought. The investigation revealed that approximately 5,000 chemical warheads, shells, or aviation bombs were recovered following the 2003 Iraq war. [15] Although all of these munitions were produced before 1991, they did pose serious hazards; at least 17 American soldiers and seven Iraqi police officers were exposed to CW agents. [16] A subsequent investigation by Chivers and Eric Schmitt revealed a major CIA-run effort, Operation Avarice, to purchase old chemical weapons that were on the Iraqi black market. The program purchased and destroyed over 400 Borak rockets, many of which contained sarin. [17]
Let me summarize: 5,000 chemical warheads were found in Iraq after the war according to the New York Times, backed by video testimonials and documents.
Also, ISIS stole part of the Iraqi chemical stockpile and used it against the Kurds.
Sounds to me like there was a huge misconception that no WMDs had been found in Iraq
I read the article (that you cited and misrepresented to fit your predetermined narrative).
The article discusses chemical weapons, not nuclear warheads. These are fundamentally different.
And the reporting actually contradicts the original WMD justification. It explicitly states these were abandoned 1980s-era weapons, not an active program as claimed pre-invasion.
So your summary is WRONG. The reporting actually undermines government credibility rather than supporting it.
You want to know something funny? Many shells were manufactured by European companies using American designs, an embarrassing detail the Pentagon apparently wanted to suppress. In fact the article shows officials understood these weren't the weapons they'd claimed existed, which is why they wanted to keep the findings a secret. To reiterate: the weapons found were remnants of Iraq's 1980s chemical program (which the West had helped build), not proof of post-1990s WMD development.
Let me summarize based on the article: these were 1980s-era weapons, many manufactured before 1991, not evidence of the "active WMD program" claimed in 2003, and they were chemical weapons, not nuclear warheads.
By the way, your response to my WMD comment was "You are of course aware that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds killing thousands of people" which is absurd. There is a fundamental difference between chemical weapons and "WMD" as-is claimed by the US Government to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Those 1980s attacks (which you are talking about) were already known and didn't constitute the "active WMD program" claimed as justification for the 2003 invasion.
In fact, the gap between the pre-war intelligence claims and post-war findings was so significant that it started multiple investigations, including the Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the Butler Review in the UK, both of which found serious intelligence failures.
So no, there doesn't appear to have been an active WMD program in Iraq in 2003, despite the claims used to justify the invasion.
You'd might want to recheck the definition of WMD, which includes chemical weapons and was mainly the focus of the UN disarmament program in Iraq, which was the pretext of the invasion.
Furthermore, the conventional wisdom that you echoed, is that no WMD were found in Iraq, this was found a decade later to be completely false. Iraq did not disarm and had huge stockpiles during and after the 2003 war.
Iraq did not only undertake to disarm the program (which was also partially active), but also to destroy all chemical weapons, it breached the UN disarmament program by not disarming, which makes the pretext valid.
We can discuss whether it was smart for the US to invade Iraq, due to the subsequent changes in the Middle East that was also a plausibly correct move, but that's more complex than I can discuss in a single paragraph
1. While chemical weapons are technically classified as WMDs, the pre-invasion claims were specifically about active production programs and imminent threats. Finding scattered 1980s remnants doesn't validate those specific claims.
2. Describing these as "huge stockpiles" misrepresents what was found. The NYT article YOU cited describes degraded, corroded weapons that were often non-functional, hardly the operational arsenal implied by "stockpiles".
3. You conflate the 1980s chemical weapons program with post-1991 disarmament obligations. The remnants weren't evidence of ongoing non-compliance but rather weapons that had been lost/missed during the chaotic dismantlement process.
4. The NYT investigation explicitly states these finds "did not support the government's invasion rationale" and shows officials kept them secret because they contradicted WMD claims.
5. There's a significant difference between "no WMDs found" and "degraded chemical remnants from the 1980s found." The latter doesn't constitute the "reconstituted WMD program" claimed pre-invasion.
My previous comment already addressed all of this, that these discoveries actually undermined rather than supported the invasion narrative / rationale.
Your response does not counter the fundamental point, it just reframes the debate around technical definitions while ignoring the substance of what the intelligence claims actually were vs. what was found.
I am not interested in continuing this conversation. Thanks.
You might read that the Army has failed to notify the Senate, creating false reports on the amount of chemical weapons found in Iraq, thus reaching the conclusion the war had no valid pretext. While 5000 (an underestimate) warheads is enough to kill ten of thousands of people, by a country who had used these previously.
The fact that the shells are corroded does not mean the material cannot be removed and reused, and it still means Iraq failed to destroy these properly, therefore breaching the UN mandate.
I think this is a great example of how due to political unpopularity of actions, an entire false narrative can be disseminated for a decade, and two decades later it still has many dogmatic followers that will defend it.
Maybe it's good food for thought about which false truisms we keep right now for political reasons that will be found out as lies in a decade.
This is going to be my last response to this thread as it is quite unproductive because you work backward from conclusions, reshaping evidence to fit your predetermined beliefs rather than following where evidence actually leads, AND you are not engaging with my substantive points but instead you cycle through different justifications while mischaracterizing evidence. In fact, your "false truism" is ironic given your consistent misrepresentation of the very article you cited. Additionally, you wrongly accused me of following "false narratives" while actively misrepresenting your own cited source. The NYT investigation contradicts your interpretation at every turn, as noted.
1. You shifted the goalpost again. You moved from "WMDs proved invasion was justified" -> "chemical weapons are technically WMDs" -> "UN mandate violations justified invasion" and each argument abandons the previous when challenged. Boring.
2. You claim the Army's secrecy proves WMDs existed, when the NYT article explicitly states the secrecy was because these finds contradicted WMD claims. The Army hid them due to embarrassment, not validation.
3. Whether degraded chemical weapons could theoretically harm people doesn't address the core issue: there was no active WMD program as claimed pre-invasion.
4. Scattered remnants from chaotic 1990s dismantlement != active non-compliance with UN mandates. Many weapons were simply lost during the destruction process, not deliberately hidden.
Chemical weapons are not "technically" WMD, the entire discussion around WMD at the time concentrated on chemical weapons.
I suggest you read about UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, what they were looking for (hint: chemical weapons), their struggles at achieving their mandates due to Iraqi manipulations, and how it led to the 2003 war.
I have not moved the goal posts, from the first reply to you I maintained Iraq had used WMDs in the past and was in breach of the 1991 terms by maintaining a very large stockpile, thus making the pretext valid (let's put aside laboratories that were not dismantled).
You say these are "scattered" but 5,000 warheads (again underestimated) is a larger stockpile than most of the world, making Iraq in 2003 having one of the largest amount of WMD warheads in existence.
Thus the conventional truth that you echoed "No WMDs were found in Iraq" is completely false
> "Chemical weapons are not "technically" WMD, the entire discussion around WMD at the time concentrated on chemical weapons."
False. The Bush administration's case centered on mobile biological weapons labs, aluminum tubes for nuclear centrifuges, and claims of active production facilities. Colin Powell's UN presentation focused heavily on alleged bio-weapons and nuclear programs. Chemical weapons were a minor part of the overall WMD narrative.
> "I suggest you read about UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, what they were looking for (hint: chemical weapons), their struggles at achieving their mandates due to Iraqi manipulations, and how it led to the 2003 war."
UNMOVIC chief Hans Blix reported in March 2003 - just before invasion - that inspectors found NO evidence of active WMD programs. UNSCOM had already dismantled Iraq's major chemical production facilities by 1998. The "Iraqi manipulations" were about concealing historical records of past programs, not hiding active ones.
> "I have not moved the goal posts, from the first reply to you I maintained Iraq had used WMDs in the past and was in breach of the 1991 terms by maintaining a very large stockpile"
You absolutely moved goalposts. You started claiming these finds proved WMDs existed, then shifted to "chemical weapons are WMDs," then "UN violations justified invasion." Past use in the 1980s was already known and irrelevant to 2003 invasion claims about active programs.
???
> "5,000 warheads (again underestimated) is a larger stockpile than most of the world, making Iraq in 2003 having one of the largest amount of WMD warheads in existence."
Absurd. Many were empty, corroded, or non-functional 1980s remnants. Countries with active nuclear arsenals, operational chemical weapons, and biological programs had vastly greater WMD capabilities than scattered degraded shells.
> "Thus the conventional truth that you echoed "No WMDs were found in Iraq" is completely false"
The truth is that no active WMD programs were found (as per every source you have mentioned, even), which is what the invasion was predicated on. Your own source explicitly states these finds "did not support the government's invasion rationale".
Seriously, you trigger me with your absurdity and logical incoherence. sighs.
I replied for other people, but you are on your own now. Take your own suggestions and execute them.
> Seriously, you trigger me with your absurdity and logical incoherence. sighs.
I replied for other people, but you are on your own now. Take your own suggestions and execute them.
I could continue to counter your arguments which are either cherrypicked or false, and the fact you blame me for moving goal posts, when you had done so yourself. But I really can only admire your continued ability to defend your mind against new information which such vigor. I am also stopping here
"Every international body had checked, and confirmed that Iran had no intention of building nuclear weapons."
That's obviously nonsense. Why would the Iranians build secret underground facilities to refine uranium if it wasn't for building nuclear weapons? An oil-rich country does not need civilian nuclear power. Even if they wanted nuclear reactors, they could make a deal with the U.S. and buy the fuel rods in exchange for oil.
Is the US government is so much more stable than Iran's?
The US has been directly or indirectly involved in all conflict in the middle east in the past few decades, and the instability in the region is due to the US's failed foreign policy.
Maybe the US should stop pretending they know what they're doing. The US can't keep domestic terrorism at bay, why are they trying in a foreign setting?
Yeah, I’ll take my chances with the global hegemon that has reigned over a historically unprecedented global peace. (Although I'd prefer we all did like South Africa and decomission our arsenals)
And yeah, the US should get out of the Middle East - we need to stop pretending is that sharia-law is compatible with western liberal democracies*.
* This IMO is the socio-cultural reason for the Middle East's instability following the US’s interventions - and why similar interventions had more success elsewhere.
Because they don't want foreign opponents at a time when they're having trouble keeping their house in order?
Also, speaking frankly, there's an implications that people don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons because it's a Muslim country. This is false. It would be far palatable for Saudi Arabia or the UAE to develop nuclear arms because even though neither country is 'Christian' or 'democratic', they are at least allies.
> So unstable, theocratic, dictatorships under sharia-law [1] should have access to nuclear weapons? Because it's "fair"?
Ironically, this statement could apply to Pakistan, which has had nuclear weapons since 1998 and yet has never used them. How strange! According to Western leadership, all Muslims are supposed to be barbarian religious fanatics who want a worldwide nuclear holocaust!
Iran having a nuclear weapon would make the Middle East and the world a much safer place - if Ukraine had not disposed of their nuclear weapons in the 1990s, there would be no war happening right now! Possession of nuclear weapons is the only way for a country to guarantee its own sovereignty, which is something America and its coalition do not want for Iran - they want a weak puppet like the Shah who will let Exxonmobil come in and take all their oil revenue for themselves.
Aside from the fact Pakistan is not a theocratic dicatorship, lets deal with your actual accusation:
> According to Western leadership, all Muslims are supposed to be barbarian religious fanatics who want a worldwide nuclear holocaust!
Thanks for telling me what I and every other westerner thinks!
As you have clearly stated, we can therefore easily conclude that all muslim countries (and by extension their people) are equivalent and all must therefore share the explicit ideological goal (enshrined in their constitution) to "fulfil the ideological mission of jihad" and hopes for "the downfall of all other [non-islamic] governments". [1]
Just to be clear: all muslim countries (and people) are equivalent = obvious sarcasm. To believe that I'd have to be about as braindead as someone who believes that all citizens of western countries share the same values, goals, and ideologies as each other (and their governments).
Tell me why Putin hasn't used nuclear weapons on Ukraine, a vulnerable non-nuclear nation that they are at war with? Is there something uniquely dangerous about Muslims in possession of nuclear weapons that you'd like to tell the class?
To be clear: Pakistan is a military dictatorship with Sharia Law and Sharia courts in effect for decades, and Islam as their state religion (something that isn't even true of Iran, a country of great religious diversity that's not reflected in Western propaganda). They are as much a theocracy as Saudi Arabia, yet their nuclear weapons aren't an issue because they play patty-cake with Western interests and have no oil reserves for Exxonmobil to salivate over.
Putin uses nuclear weapons to keep the rest of the world cowering while he launches military invasions of neighboring countries. It's a perfect example of why we don't want Iran to have nukes - considering the jihad and chaos their government is already exporting to the region, think how they'd act if they were "untouchable".
Personal attacks will get you banned here, so please don't post like that.
Also, please don't perpetuate religious/nationalistic flamewars on HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. I realize other commenters are feeding it, but the important thing is to stop feeding it regardless of what other commenters are doing.
Please don't perpetuate religious/nationalistic flamewars on HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. I realize other commenters are feeding it, but the important thing is to stop feeding it regardless of what other commenters are doing.
Ignore the rest of what wrote, and preemptively call facts silly. I'm sure you're more familiar with the matter than IAEA. Heck, even Tulsi Gabbard, the US intelligence director initially said they were not building nuclear weapons, until she changed her tune after Trump probably barked at her.
For power, uranium needs to be 3-5% enrichment, medical applications about 20%, and weapons will be 95%. The IAEA confirmed in May 2025 that Iran's had a stockpile of over 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. That's not enrichment for power. They had a stockpile at 20% in 2015 when the JCPOA was made, that was also well over what was needed for power.
> enabling Iran to develop nuclear weapons and fund terrorist groups
And yet we allow israel to develop nuclear weapons and fund terrorist groups. At least in iran's defense, they aren't engaging in genocide like israel is.
> For the life of me I can't understand why it was undone.
Zionist domination of america. We're always told china this or russia that, but we don't waste trillions of dollars fighting for china or russia.
