US Attacks Iran 2026

[JohnH]

Suppose it were the other way around. Suppose the leader of Iran said they have weaponse we do not know about, and that they will send the United States back to the stone age. Would we be pontificating what he meant by that, and whether to take it seriously? Is this just the way leaders talk?

Iran's leaders regularly say "Death to America" and "Death to Israel". So we don't need to "imagine" that it's the other way around.

Suppose they were bombing our schools and power plants, and we were the ones without power, unsafe living in our own homes in most cities, and our roads and bridges were being destroyed. Would we be saying that's no big deal, we can live without, clearly they must not have intended to bomb our schools?

If Iran had the capability to do this, they would. They regularly bomb Israel (and, now, most of the Gulf countries) and they usually target civilian infrastructure (probably because it's easier to strike than military targets).

100% - all of the above. And this is not about justifying anything America and Israel are doing. It's just the facts.

It's entirely possible that neither America (as a military state), Israel, or Iran are entirely innocent or have the purest of motives.

[QuietlyListening]

Are you also praying for the innocent Israeli, Saudi, Qatari, Bahraini, and many more civilians who are caught in this? Or just praying for Iranians?

Wow, just wow.

Just because other people groups are not mentioned - it does not mean they are not being prayed for. I would say most if not all folks on MN and Christians around the world are praying for those but also for Iranians. Just because we pray for Iranians and mention that because they are facing possibility of imminent destruction- doesn't mean others aren't being prayed for.

[JohnH]

Are you also praying for the innocent Israeli, Saudi, Qatari, Bahraini, and many more civilians who are caught in this? Or just praying for Iranians?

Wow, just wow.

Just because other people groups are not mentioned - it does not mean they are not being prayed for. I would say most if not all folks on MN and Christians around the world are praying for those but also for Iranians. Just because we pray for Iranians and mention that because they are facing possibility of imminent destruction- doesn't mean others aren't being prayed for.

I am getting VERY concerned with the narratives I see in some circles (both left and right wing) that are almost cheering for the destruction of Israel and for Israeli casualties. So, yes, when someone seems to have concerns for only one side in a conflict... I think it reveals where their loyalties lie.

[Bootstrap]

But ... haven't we now convinced them that larger, more powerful nations will attack them without warning, and they need to defend themselves however they can? Seems like the incentive for terrorism or nuclear weapons is greater now than it was before.

"Incentives"? Has Iran ever showed any slowing down of terrorism or trying to develop nuclear weapons?

Yes, actually. Which is why we had a treaty under which we had the most intrusive inspections of any country ever. Peacefully. By agreement. And a fatwah against actually developing nuclear weapons.

We walked way from that.

[Bootstrap]

I am getting VERY concerned with the narratives I see in some circles (both left and right wing) that are almost cheering for the destruction of Israel and for Israeli casualties. So, yes, when someone seems to have concerns for only one side in a conflict... I think it reveals where their loyalties lie.

I pray for Israelis, Palestinians, Iranians, and the whole Middle East in more or less the same way.

Currently, Lebanese, Palestinians, and Iranians are facing much more danger than Israelis or Americans. But I pray for us all. I think God values all of our lives equally.

I think the Golden Rule is a good guide here. And pray for our enemies and persecutors, too.

[Robert]

Guess I would love for our president to explain why he started the war. Supposedly to remove those in power and help those who have been protesting. But now he is threatening to remove a whole civilization - which I am assuming will mean bombing/killing many of those he said he wanted to help/to save.

I have interpreted this to mean that a "civilisation" that seems to be entirely based around running a mafia-like entity that has its stated goal to exterminate the state of Israel (based on some mission from God), develop nuclear weapons, missiles, and drones, and brutally suppresses any dissent.

Eventually, other civilisations aren't going to like such a civilisation and will get rid of. Iran decided to spend last night raining down destruction on Saudi Arabia.

I believe that he means wiping out the Iranian government, not Iranian civilization. Seems like it would benefit the President to clearly say that. To say that the US is going to wipe out a civilization is really something. We should be praying for peace today, and for the success of negotiations.

Art of the Deal in action. Big ask and then he backs away and lets the other side feel they got something when he gets everything he wanted to start with.

Again, I do not agree with it, but it is what it is.

[Robert]

Yes, actually. Which is why we had a treaty under which we had the most intrusive inspections of any country ever. Peacefully. By agreement. And a fatwah against actually developing nuclear weapons.

We walked way from that.

From what I saw, they hid lots and never really honored the agreements. The Twelvers want worldwide destruction and war to bring to return of the 12th Imam. They will not back away. They see it as a calling from God to create worldwide disaster and destruction. They also feel justified to lie and say they will not when they continue to work towards it.

[Bootstrap]

Yes, actually. Which is why we had a treaty under which we had the most intrusive inspections of any country ever. Peacefully. By agreement. And a fatwah against actually developing nuclear weapons.

We walked way from that.

From what I saw, they hid lots and never really honored the agreements. The Twelvers want worldwide destruction and war to bring to return of the 12th Imam. They will not back away. They see it as a calling from God to create worldwide disaster and destruction. They also feel justified to lie and say they will not when they continue to work towards it.

We were deeply embedded, I think we would have had solid evidence if they were violating the agreements in any significant way. Our intelligence assessments say they were much further from having a bomb then than they are now.

Suppose we had an agreement with them, and they said they would not develop the capacity to build nuclear weapons. How would we monitor it? I imagine pretty much the way we did then. What "deal" do we want that is better than that one?

Back then, they trusted us to hold up our end of the bargain. That has changed completely. Why would they trust us in any deal?

[JohnH]

Looks like a 2 week ceasefire has been negotiated, contingent upon Iran discontinuing its blockade.

[Robert]

Grok:

During Barack Obama's presidency (2009–2017), Iran's record on IAEA oversight was mixed. It depended on the time frame and whether one focuses on Iran's core NPT safeguards obligations or the additional commitments under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).Pre-JCPOA Period (2009–2015)Iran had a long history of non-compliance with its IAEA safeguards agreement under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Key issues included:Failure to declare nuclear facilities and activities in a timely manner (e.g., the Fordow enrichment site, revealed in 2009).
Undeclared experiments and possible military dimensions (PMD) to its nuclear program.
Limited cooperation with IAEA investigations into past activities.

The IAEA repeatedly reported that Iran was not fully implementing its safeguards obligations or UN Security Council resolutions calling for suspension of enrichment and heavy-water activities. Iran provided some information and allowed limited access but stonewalled on key PMD questions, such as weaponization-related work.

congress.gov

The Obama administration pursued diplomacy, leading to the 2013 interim Joint Plan of Action and ultimately the JCPOA in July 2015. As part of the lead-up to the deal, Iran cooperated with an IAEA "roadmap" to address outstanding PMD issues. The IAEA's December 2015 final assessment concluded that Iran had conducted activities relevant to nuclear weapon development until at least 2003 (and some possibly later), but found no credible indications of diversion of nuclear material after 2009 or an active weaponization program at that time. Critics argued this assessment was limited by Iran's incomplete cooperation and sanitization of sites.

en.wikipedia.org

During JCPOA Implementation (January 2016–January 2017)The JCPOA entered into force on "Implementation Day" (January 16, 2016), after the IAEA verified that Iran had completed initial steps: reducing its uranium stockpile, limiting centrifuges, redesigning the Arak reactor, and granting enhanced monitoring access (including provisional implementation of the Additional Protocol).Throughout 2016 and into 2017 (still under Obama), the IAEA's quarterly verification reports consistently stated that Iran was implementing its nuclear-related commitments under the JCPOA. This included:Limits on low-enriched uranium stockpiles.
Centrifuge numbers and enrichment levels (capped at 3.67%).
Heavy-water production and stocks.
Access for IAEA inspectors to declared sites and some enhanced monitoring of the supply chain.

The Obama administration certified Iran's compliance to Congress multiple times, and international partners (EU, UK, France, Germany, etc.) agreed that Iran was meeting its core JCPOA obligations. The IAEA did not report major violations of the deal's quantitative limits during this window.

factcheck.org

Caveats and Criticisms of "Honoring" OversightEven during JCPOA compliance:Minor or disputed issues arose, such as temporary exceedances of the heavy-water stockpile cap (Iran shipped excess abroad, but critics argued loopholes allowed retention of control). Some reports noted limited transparency on centrifuge R&D and production details.
No routine access to military sites for verifying Section T (banning nuclear-weapon-related activities). The JCPOA had a process for suspect-site access, but it was never triggered, and the IAEA did not visit military facilities for this purpose post-Implementation Day.
Past PMD issues were closed by the IAEA Board in late 2015 without full resolution in the eyes of some experts, who argued Iran did not provide complete answers or access.
IAEA reporting became less detailed after the JCPOA, omitting some pre-deal data that allowed independent verification. Critics (including some U.S. officials and think tanks) said this made full assessment harder and that the Obama administration was overly permissive of ambiguities to preserve the deal.

fdd.org

Iran's NPT safeguards obligations (separate from JCPOA extras) were under verification, and the IAEA drew the conclusion that declared nuclear material remained in peaceful use. However, broader suspicions about undeclared activities persisted due to Iran's history.In short: Yes, Iran generally adhered to the specific JCPOA limits and allowed the enhanced IAEA monitoring that was in place from 2016 onward, as repeatedly verified by the agency during Obama's term. No, it did not have a clean record of full, transparent cooperation with IAEA oversight historically, and implementation involved disputes over interpretation, access, and past activities that critics said were downplayed.After Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, Iran began stepping back from its commitments starting in 2019. During the Obama years, the deal's verification regime was functioning as designed, though its effectiveness and Iran's sincerity remained heavily debated.

They were hiding things and did not have a clean record because they were hiding and lying.