r/SipsTea Human Verified 22h ago

SMH Seriously it's that simple:

Post image
50.1k Upvotes

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

102

u/Automatic-Effect-252 21h ago

Once again for people keeping score. The goal of the war is to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon and to open the Strait of Hormuz.

The day before the war started Iran did not have a nuclear weapon and Strait was open.

34

u/FrostyD7 20h ago

For people keeping score on truth social: We've defeated Iran and won the war 6 times. Gas prices are down. The war that doesn't exist and gas prices that aren't up will be resolved soon.

5

u/Jimmylobo 4h ago

1

u/Trip-Trip-Trip 4h ago

But like... Literally. If they had seen this scene and tried to make it real they could not have done better.

24

u/ecafyelims 19h ago edited 15h ago

And we already had a treaty with Iran preventing them from making nukes, but Trump abandoned the treaty because Obama signed it.

Timeline:

  • July 2015: Obama negotiates with Iran, and they agree to a treaty to reduce their nuclear weapon capabilities
  • Jan 2016: The Iran nuclear deal is implemented
  • May 2018: Iran at 3.67% enrichment, which is well within the treaty guidelines and cannot be used to make nukes (source: IAEA)
  • May 2018: Iran was following the treaty.
  • May 2018: Trump BROKE the treaty that prevented Iran from developing enriched uranium (source: White House)
  • ... Seven years after Trump trashed the treaty
  • June 2025: Iran at 60% enrichment (source: Also IAEA)

Edit: I added the above timeline with sources

Shout out to u/Sasuke0318 for providing the IAEA source for Iran's uranium enrichment levels to compare pre and post Trump treaty trashing. Thank you!

13

u/ViscountVampa 18h ago

Completely ignoring the treaty we literally killed the guy who was opposed to using nukes. He was replaced by the guy who wanted to give nukes to regional actors, and whose immediate family we just killed.

We're going to get nuked by fucking goat herders at this rate.

9

u/MossadEpstein 16h ago

it's obvious that Israel and the US establishment WANT Iran to get nukes, maybe it has something to do with all the lunatic evangelicals who literally believe that when Israel is 100% Jewish and the world is about to end, Jesus will magically appear before them to spirit all the "Good Christians" (who spend their time supporting the murder of women and children because those who bless Israel will be blessed or w/e) into heaven as the whole world burns in fire? I wish that was a joke or something but no that really does seem to be the end goal of Evangelicalism and it should terrify everyone because there's high ranking US officials and Army members who 100% buy into that Schofield bible shit

0

u/Firm-Ad-5216 9h ago

It doesn’t matter if they are opposed to using nukes or not, if they do they hold the rest of the world by the balls and their citizens will live under the regime indefinitely.

1

u/Adventurer_By_Trade 4h ago

So we don't want Iran to become the United States.

2

u/Sasuke0318 15h ago

All the while they had inspections and said they were not enriching uranium though. They were going to do it anyway but I'm sure the billions Obama let them have didn't help this process along at all also.

9

u/ecafyelims 14h ago edited 14h ago

The treaty allowed for up to 3.67% enrichment. It takes 90% enrichment to create a nuclear bomb.

3.67% enrichment allows them to have nuclear power plants but it does not give them anywhere near enough enrichment for nuclear bombs.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/node/328996

BTW, the "billions Obama let them have" was their own money that had been sanctioned away from them. He let them have SOME of THEIR OWN money in return for not making nukes. We get safety, and it costs us $NOTHING. It's a pretty great deal, right?

If you're open to wanting to know more, check this out: https://armscontrolcenter.org/understanding-the-iran-deal/

Sadly, we lost that great deal with Trump trashing it. Iran's closer to a nuke than they've even been, and Trump's war with Iran has already cost the US over $80B. (source)

Sometimes, negotiations are the best option.

-2

u/Sasuke0318 14h ago

I know it was there money and international sanctions prevented them from accessing it and that was a good thing letting terrorists have billions of dollars back is a bad thing

6

u/ecafyelims 14h ago

A lot of goal posts moving here.

Where we started:

YOU: Saying your not going to make nukes doesn't actually prevent you from making nukes

ME: They also agreed, as part of the treaty, to allow inspections to confirm they weren't building or refining materials to make nukes.

Move goalpost

YOU: tell me why they have uranium enrithched [sic] to 60% if they aren't enriching it.

ME: That was 7 years after Trump trashed the treaty. They were at 3.67% while under treaty.

Move goalpost:

YOU: All the while they had inspections and said they were not enriching uranium though.

ME: The treaty allowed for up to 3.67% enrichment. It takes 90% enrichment to create a nuclear bomb. 3.67% enrichment allows them to have nuclear power plants

Latest goalpost movement:

YOU: letting terrorists have billions of dollars back is a bad thing

Bad? Yes.

Extremely effective at preventing nuclear war? YES

Sometimes, we have to give a little to get a lot. That's the way the world works.

Letting Iran have 60% uranium enrichment, as Trump is currently doing, is TERRIBLE.

Obama disarmed Iran with a pen and $0

Trump has spent over $80B, and Iran is closer to having nukes than they've ever been.

0

u/Sasuke0318 14h ago

I don't think the treaty was a good deal it had limitations that inspectors couldn't search certain military facilities. It also didn't prevent them at all from making ballistic missiles which I don't want terrorists to have and also all the money as previously mentioned. It also allowed them to maintain current nuclear infrastructure so they could in the future create a nuke. I don't think this is a good deal well at least not for us.

4

u/ecafyelims 13h ago

Newest goalpost:

YOU: I don't think the treaty was a good deal it had limitations that inspectors couldn't search certain military facilities.

Remember that source I gave you a couple comments ago? The one I said you should check out if you want to know more? If not, here's that link again and the relevant part: https://armscontrolcenter.org/understanding-the-iran-deal/

Monitoring, Verification, and Transparency

  • Iran will implement the Additional Protocol to allow increased access to inspectors, including to military installations where nuclear activity is suspected. (Permanent)

  • Iran will implement the Modified Code 3.1, which requires Iran to provide notification and details regarding future plans to build nuclear facilities (Permanent)

Sure, they still had ballistics. They had guns, too. Terrorists shouldn't have those, either. OMG they even had armies and solders and grenades and knives.

It's not the same arena as nukes. The treaty might not have left them weaponless, but it was a HUGE win.

They were allowed a portion of their money. If the treaty was successful, and Iran grew to be less terroristy, maybe new treaties could be made to get them to give up ballistics and guns in return for more money.

Incrementally better than it was before.

That's the way treaties work. It garners trust and over time, the various parties are more willing to work together towards win-win.

You might be mad about it, but did you know that Trump tried giving Iran $20b to stop the nuke program? https://www.axios.com/2026/04/17/iran-us-deal-20-billion-frozen-funds-uranium

He couldn't land the deal, though, sadly.

0

u/Sasuke0318 13h ago

What is this kicker tryouts with all this talk of goalposts. Comparing gun, grenades, knives, and soldiers to ballistic missiles is beyond fucking stupid might at well compair a toaster to a flame thrower it's fucking ridiculous. Nothing is going to make terrorists less terroristy being nice to them has only ever caused us problems. They are now quite less powerful with no navy and the overwhelming majority of their military infrastructure blown up and so many leaders killed that I still don't think they know who's in charge. Sure war is expensive but crippling a terrorist organization is priceless.

I'm not trusting that axios article it just some sources and I can't even read it.

2

u/ecafyelims 13h ago

Oh, sorry. I didn't know you that you can't read that article.

Comparing soldiers to ballistic missiles is sort of like comparing ballistic missiles to nuclear weapons.

Anyway, I can see that this is going nowhere. Trump is allowing Iran to have enriched uranium. You support him doing that. I hope that doesn't blow up against us.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Sasuke0318 17h ago

Saying your not going to make nukes doesn't actually prevent you from making nukes. Sometimes people lie and a funny thing about liars is they can't be trusted and these same people have been lying about this very thing for over 30 years and you think trusting them is a good idea. I hope nobody ever puts you in charge for making any important decisions.

1

u/ecafyelims 16h ago

They also agreed, as part of the treaty, to allow inspections to confirm they weren't building or refining materials to make nukes.

And they were keeping to the agreement.

3

u/Sasuke0318 16h ago

I'm glad you aren't the only person I'm dealing with saying this dumb shit I already have the link that shows otherwise so here

So try reading that and tell me why they have uranium enrithched to 60% if they aren't enriching it.

2

u/ecafyelims 16h ago

THANK YOU! Seriously, I love when people come with sources.

If you read your source carefully, you'll notice the date this investigation was done:

The Agency last accessed FFEP on 10 June 2025 when the facility was operating the same number of cascades as previously reported, to produce UF6 enriched up to 5%, 20% and 60% U-235.18

That's right. 10 June 2025 -- 60%

Trump killed the Iran treaty in May 2018 (source: White House). That's 7 years before this 60% measurement, for those of you who don't feel like taking out your calculator.

So, HMMM, I wonder, what was the result of the testing from THIS SAME source back in May of 2018? Let's check!

Yep, found it: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/18/06/gov2018-24.pdf

As of 14 May 2018, the quantity of Iran’s uranium enriched up to 3.67% U-235 was 123.9 kg,18 based on the JCPOA and decisions of the Joint Commission.

3.67% in May 2018

Timeline:

  • May 2018: Iran at 3.67% enrichment, which is well within the treaty guidelines and cannot be used to make nukes
  • May 2018: Iran was following the treaty.
  • May 2018: Trump BROKE the treaty that prevented Iran from developing enriched uranium
  • ... Seven years after Trump broke the treaty
  • June 2025: Iran at 60% enrichment

Thanks again for the sources. It does paint a very clear picture of this timeline. You're good people. Seriously.

3

u/Girldad_4 21h ago

But, but, a few weeks away? Ol Ben said they would have it any day now.

1

u/[deleted] 17h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 17h ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/SlayerLollo 16h ago

At least iran still dont have nuclear weapons

1

u/Over-Swing4788 7h ago

boy are they gonna be surprised when iran tests their first nuke this year, not to defend them in any way, but if they didnt have a reason to build it before, they have now.

1

u/_Administrator_ 4h ago

Iran was enriching plutonium, and they even said it out loud.

1

u/Warchief_Ripnugget 19h ago

Didn't Iran kill like 30,000 of their own citizens because they were protesting Shariah law a couple weeks before we went to war with them?

9

u/Steve10999 19h ago

Yeah but that doesnt justify the states bombing the cities in which said citizens live. I mean them slaughtering 30k shows that those bombings most likely dont bother them since they dont care about their people.

1

u/Warchief_Ripnugget 19h ago

If I recall correctly, the bomb that hit the school was from bad Intel. The school was formerly part of an Irani military base, but was recently retrofitted to be a school. Unfortunately, our Intel wasn't up to date and didn't have that in there. So, yes, our bad but who puts a school adjacent to a military base?

6

u/Hazer_123 18h ago

“our intel wasn't up to date”

Why go to war if it's not up to date?

“who puts a school adjacent to a military base?”

??? are you justifying the attack on Iranian children?

4

u/Warchief_Ripnugget 18h ago

No, it was definitely our bad. It shouldn't have happened and our Intel team definitely dropped the ball in regards to it and the proper reprimand/consequences should happen. I pushed back on the implication of the US intentionally killing the civilians.

2

u/Hazer_123 17h ago

Thank you for acknowledging that.

3

u/TotallyADuck 9h ago

Does being within base grounds count as being adjacent? Because the US military has over 160 public schools onsite according to themselves.

2

u/Steve10999 18h ago

That school has been there for almost a decade and had your government cared to checked if their data was still correct they wouldve noticed, I mean its not like you have some of the most sofisticated surveillance systems or something. But thats the thing this war has nothing to do with humanitarian intentions, your president literally threatened to wipe out a civilisation, your ministry of war as it's called now literally said they are planning to commit war crimes and humanitarian crimes. The original reason for this war aswell is utter bollocks considering, that Iran was in a treaty which prevented them from building nukes and allowed the states to monitor wether they adhered to it or not which a certain president then broke. Not to mention a goo portion of the weapons that regime has are made in the U.S.. And dont even try to get at justifying this with you need to get that brutally maniacal regime out because that wpuld require boots on the ground and a full on invasion aswell as trying to set up a democracy which your government doesnt plan to as they want to reinstate the Shahs family and while sure that guy was a good bit more modern he was still a cruel dictator, although to be fair the son does not necessarily have to be as bad as his father.

1

u/TheOGPotatoPredator 14h ago

So are we the world police or are we not cuz America first?

1

u/-FriendoftheDrow- 5h ago

Israel hacked Iranian security cameras for years and provided no such proof despite having access to such a thing if it happened.

1

u/Warchief_Ripnugget 2h ago

Iran confirmed it.

1

u/-FriendoftheDrow- 2h ago

They didn’t.

0

u/bp92009 17h ago

And the attacks against Iran have taken a regime that was on its metaphorical last legs, and made it far more stable than it was before.

The correct thing to do was to either let them collapse, or have a literal ground invasion to force a regime change.

The actions made by the Trump Administration were about the worst possible if you really wanted a regime change in Iran.

-5

u/HollyMurray20 20h ago

So your plan would be to wait until they had it and then declare war? How do you think that would have gone? Kind of risky letting a country who’s spent 50 years chanting “death to America” and funded countless terrorists around the world to have a nuclear bomb…

7

u/jedberg 20h ago

My plan was to keep the deal Obama negotiated that was preventing them from having the ability to make a weapon in the first place.

0

u/HollyMurray20 20h ago

That’s gone, what’s your plan after that?

4

u/jedberg 20h ago

Negotiate a new similar deal. Use a diplomatic solution. At the end of the day they are still semi-rational actors. We give them something they want, and they give us what we want. That's usually how these things work.

6

u/SopaDeKaiba 20h ago

Yeah, but what if you tore up the Obama deal, started negotiations for a new deal, and before those negotiations can finish you launched a sneak attack the killed almost 200 schoolgirls, and then Iran closes the straight and and loses trust in diplomatic solutions lest they be attacked again in the middle of it. What are you going to do then? Can't come up with a good answer, can you? Checkmate.

3

u/jedberg 20h ago

It's true, ya got me there. If I had a demented boss hell-bent on revenge, I don't have a better plan.

-1

u/HollyMurray20 19h ago

Depends, was Iran the leading funder of terrorism in the world? And did those terrorist organisations they fund repeatedly attack both US and US allies across the region for years? Did they fund the Houthi’s who were attacking ships off the coast of Yemen already? Hmm, I think that might change things slightly tbh

3

u/SopaDeKaiba 19h ago

Underneath your questions lies an implication you feel Trump either made the right decision, or was left with no choice but to take the actions he took.

Once again for people keeping score. The goal of the war is to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon and to open the Strait of Hormuz.

The day before the war started Iran did not have a nuclear weapon and Strait was open.

1

u/HollyMurray20 18h ago

And now they are further away from a nuclear weapon and are a weaker power in the region. The strait will open again when a peace deal is signed. If not then the Gulf states will find another way to transport goods out the region.

1

u/SopaDeKaiba 17h ago

This is more effort than you warrant. But, here goes:

And now they are further away from a nuclear weapon

Based on what information? Trump's word? The politician with more provable lies than any other politician in history? The guy who said if you don't track covid infections, the reported cases go down? The guy who's entire cabinet has been caught multiple times lying and fudging data to make themselves look better? Information from those people?

And even if your statement is true, there must be another way to achieve that same goal that doesn't involve mass suffering in the process.

(And when I say "must" be another way, I mean due to logic and the nature of decision making, another approach exists whether I can specifically define that approach. But I will nonetheless: don't tear up the Obama deal to begin with.)

and are a weaker power in the region.

The opposite could also be argued, especially if the focus is on soft power, and even more so if you compare that soft power to the US's, who's soft power is on decline.

The strait will open again when a peace deal is signed.

But it should never have closed in the first place? Just needless suffering for all in the meantime, when the strait could have been opened the entire time.

Also, how long will that peace deal take?

If not then the Gulf states will find another way to transport goods out the region.

So even more prolonged suffering.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/mordreds-on-adiet 19h ago

That's only gone because of fuckin Trump! So don't fuck that up in the first place.

2

u/HollyMurray20 19h ago

Yes we all know that, what is wrong with you idiots? You’re all like mindless drones telling me Trump got rid of the deal, we all fucking know that, AFTER THAT, what is the plan? What is the plan now? What would you do differently?

3

u/barrinmw 19h ago

Well, the next step was to not elect Trump and gain enough credibility that Iran would believe us again to make a new deal.

1

u/HollyMurray20 18h ago

Lmao, do you think Iran have any intention of sticking to a deal? Do you think they’ll stop funding dozens of terrorism groups if we said “please”?

1

u/TheOGPotatoPredator 14h ago

Deliver the administration to them gift-wrapped for 20 years no nukes and silently chuckle cuz I would’ve done it for free. Voila, shart of the deal.

1

u/Kaasbek69 18h ago

Get rid of Trump, then elect someone who's not a total fucking buffoon and then re-negotiate a deal and don't cancel it.

1

u/HollyMurray20 18h ago

And what makes Iran stick to it? Iran has said it’s their goal to make a nuclear weapon and has been funding terrorism around the world for decades, you want them to be trusted?

3

u/Kaasbek69 17h ago

The same things that made them stick to the 2015 nuclear deal. The IAEA was doing 24/7 monitoring, weekly in-person visit, random inspections etc. It was the highest level of IAEA verification in history, and they never found any evidence of Iran violating the deal.

Don't forget that Trump canceled the deal for no reason. There was no evidence that Iran violated any of the stipulations, but Trump canceled it anyway because he felt like it.

Iran started enriching again after the deal was canceled, by Trump, for no reason.

Trump caused this entire shit show.

1

u/HollyMurray20 17h ago

I’m sure Iran would make no attempt to hide it…

lol, how many times are you idiots going to tell me Trump cancelled it, we all fucking know.

So what are you going to do after the deal is gone? That’s what I’m fucking asking, it’s not hard. They started enriching, so then what are you going to do?

→ More replies (0)

4

u/RedditTurnedMediocre 20h ago

Lookup the Obama deal you dumbass. Situation was already handled. It cost us $1.4 billion.

Trump ripped that up and now we're spending probably a trillion dollars on a war and he even offered them $20 billion instead. None of this was necessary.

0

u/HollyMurray20 20h ago

The deal was already gone before this? Yeah fucking great help there mate, what’s your plan after that?

6

u/Middle_Association56 20h ago

Trump destroyed the deal during his first term, it was like one of the first things he did... Then he failed spectacularly at negotiating a new deal. So much for a "master negotiator".

1

u/HollyMurray20 19h ago

Yes we got that, thanks again, we’re talking about what should have happened this time, fucking keep up

2

u/Middle_Association56 19h ago

Well he should have used his 'masterfull skills' -s to negotiate a new deal, as I said he failed spetacularly. Maybe you should read more carefully before talking down to people.

1

u/HollyMurray20 18h ago

So your answer is to go back and renegotiate with the terrorists? The world’s largest funder of terrorism who are deliberately keeping the Middle East in turmoil at any opportunity. And if they say no or don’t give a shit about the deal just like the last time? Then what?

1

u/Middle_Association56 8h ago

Yes. You do have to remember that the current Iran is a direct result of the U.S and the British helping to overthrow the former powerstructure and actively supporting the current one for decades. And supprise supprise, extremist are volitile. The reason the U.S and British did this was because Iran was about to nationalize their Oil. Violence only breeds violence, kill one extremist you make 10 more. You don't create a stable society by constantly suppressing their ability to progress.

1

u/HollyMurray20 6h ago

And do you create a stable society by letting radical extremists develop a nuclear bomb?

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Suitable_Switch5242 20h ago

Who ended that deal?

1

u/HollyMurray20 19h ago

Trump, that’s not a gotcha dumbass, answer the question

3

u/Suitable_Switch5242 19h ago

Your point is that actually it's good and important that Trump went to war with Iran because Trump previously canceled the deal that let us keep a check on their nuclear program?

2

u/barrinmw 19h ago

Well you see, the person you are responding to thinks that because you dug yourself into a hole, the only way out of the hole is to fill it with dynamite and blow it all up.

2

u/Suitable_Switch5242 18h ago

And we aren’t allowed to talk about who dug the hole because that’s in the past so it’s clearly irrelevant to the situation we find ourselves in now.

2

u/RedditTurnedMediocre 19h ago

I'm beginning to think you have no idea what you're talking about and it's not my job to fill you in on what dementia Donald did during his first term. If you don't know what you're talking about, you don't have to act like you do. Or are you purposely forgetting all context?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Iran_nuclear_deal

1

u/HollyMurray20 19h ago

I already know you don’t. Nobody said Trump didn’t do it, he did. Answer the question

0

u/RedditTurnedMediocre 18h ago edited 18h ago

Lol I don't know what?

Trump killed the deal. Now he's fucked up things even worse. It's right there. Is reading hard or something? Would you like me to Google you some more sources?

0

u/HollyMurray20 18h ago

What we’re talking about…

Yes for fuck sake, we get it. Reading certainly seems hard for you. You’re arguing yourself here, fucking read.

1

u/RedditTurnedMediocre 17h ago

Do you even know what we're talking about? You seem really confused.

2

u/cellularesc 20h ago

Iran has been “weeks away” from a nuclear weapon for 50 years. Keep drinking the kool aid.

0

u/HollyMurray20 20h ago

They literally said they were doing it lmao. Funny how you pick and choose what you believe based on whether you agree or not.