Why can't Iran have nukes?

Well why can’t they? They clearly need them

>>507687646 (OP)
Because we wouldnt be able to bully them anymore

>>507687646 (OP)
because israel wouldn't like that

>>507687646 (OP)
If a nation can and want to have nukes, than your opinion literally doesnt matter

>>507687646 (OP)
Because Israel bombed them :D

>>507687646 (OP)
because they aren't nice to jews. Only countries nice to jews can have nukes.

>>507687646 (OP)
They can. I have never understood, since I was a kid. Everyone has the right to keep and bare arms. An armed society is a polite one. We have nukes so we’ll never need them.
What kind of bullcrap propaganda is this absolutely not shit?

>>507687646 (OP)
only the joo gets nukes

>>507687646 (OP)
Remember when Belarus didn't had nukes and 404, nato and EU were threatening them with war? Now they have nukes and Oreshnik and no one is fucking with them anymore, they don't even have inflation.

>>507688051
Best Korea, PRC and Belarus aren't nice to pissrael and they all have nukes.

Somebody has to not have nukes. There I said it.

>>507688186
That's you. You don't deserve them.

>>507687646 (OP)
because brownlet tard rage.

>>507688051
That's because they have strong leaders that keep niggers out and have real scientists that make their own nukes.

How about every country place their nukes in a big pile and just start killing? Last country to stand gets all the nukes.

Muslims can't be trusted with them (except for Pakistan)

>>507688063

You're applying Western idealism to Iran. That's not going to work with their current regime.

>>507688225
Please don’t missile barrage me

>>507687646 (OP)
because j***

>>507688993
What do indians have to do with it

>>507687646 (OP)
They can't be trusted not to use them or give them to terrorist groups

>>507687646 (OP)
>why can't the insane person who keeps threatening to murder his neighbors and believes it's the key to the second coming of Jesus have a gun?

>>507687646 (OP)
Because they just can't, ok!

>>507687646 (OP)
Middle Eastern countries should not possess weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)—nuclear, chemical, or biological—due to the region's volatility and the severe risks these weapons pose.

1. Regional Instability: The Middle East is marked by deep-rooted political, religious, and territorial conflicts. Introducing WMDs into this mix could escalate tensions into full-scale wars. If one country acquires WMDs, others may follow, triggering a dangerous arms race.

2. Risk of Proliferation: The presence of extremist groups raises the danger that WMDs could fall into the hands of terrorists. Many states may also lack the secure infrastructure needed to protect such weapons, increasing the risk of theft, accidents, or misuse.

3. Humanitarian Impact: WMDs cause mass, indiscriminate suffering. Their use would lead to devastating civilian casualties and long-term environmental harm, especially in densely populated urban areas.

4. International Law and Consequences: Pursuing WMDs often violates treaties like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Chemical Weapons Convention. Countries that defy these norms face diplomatic isolation, sanctions, and damage to their international reputation.

5. Better Alternatives: True security comes from diplomacy, regional cooperation, and economic development—not from weapons of mass destruction. Investing in peace-building and infrastructure offers far more lasting benefits than militarization.

In short, WMDs would increase insecurity, not reduce it. Avoiding their spread in the Middle East is essential for regional peace and global safety.

>>507687646 (OP)
In this world order, only democratic countries have the right to legitimately have nuclear weapons post cold war

>>507687646 (OP)

>>507687646 (OP)
If they have nukes, kikes cannot bring democracy to its oil. Pretty much like they have to ignore North Korea.

>>507688169
there's a difference between "not nice" and "we must kill the Jews in order for the Mahdi and Jesus to come and bring in the last day and the resurrection"

China, Belarus, and North Korea have nukes as deterrence from invasion.
Iran wants nukes in order to use them to kill Jews and usher in the end of days.
There's a pretty big difference.

dont sign the nuclear non proliferation treaty then you stupid fucking gorillas

>>507689616
didnt know north korea is democratic country

>>507688051
Is Pakistan nice to Jews?

>>507688051
jews invented nukes, the thought of other people having them must be very upsetting

>>507687646 (OP)
Because nukes aren't real.

>>507687646 (OP)
brown, evil, and stupid - in that order.

>>507687646 (OP)
because they could defend themselves

>>507690118
Iran literally means the land of the Arians
meanwhile USA is the land of the brownoids, like 45% white at this moment?

>>507690446
>offended by being called brown, out of nowhere
>polish flag

vpn nigger detected

>>507687646 (OP)
Well, their scientists keep getting assassinated

>>507688746
All men are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. Yeah, I will apply my ideology everywhere.

>>507690118
But enough about israelis

>>507687646 (OP)
Because Muslims are fucking insain people and will nuke everyone in the name of their retard religion.

Every country should get 5 nukes and that's it no more nukes will ever be made they can only get more by taking or trading them from another country.

>>507689880
Forgot about that

De Klerk's agreement to hand over power to the ANC in South Africa was conditional upon the niggers not getting South Africa's nukes.
Niggers should not get nukes.

>>507687646 (OP)
Because then Saudi Arabia will want nukes to counter the Shi'a threat. Then Turkey. Then Yemen. Then the UAE and Qatar. Then Jordan. Before you know it, the entire Middle East is nuclear equipped pointing nuclear warheads at each other's cities. I'd be surprised if the Middle East doesn't turn into a nuclear wasteland in this scenario within 5 years and everybody's precious holy cities flattened like Nagasaki. Give Iran nukes if that's the future you want.