By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following recent U.S. strikes on its nuclear program, Iran will not retaliate further and is open to negotiations with Washington, according to a senior government official. However, Iran will continue uranium enrichment despite the attacks, emphasizing their long-standing position. The U.S. strikes, which included the use of “bunker buster bombs” on key Iranian sites, followed an earlier Israeli attack and Iranian missile responses. Despite the tension, a fragile ceasefire is currently in place.
Read the original article here
Iran won’t retaliate against the United States—but will keep enriching uranium, top official says. This seems to be the current situation on the ground, according to the available information. The consensus seems to be that a direct military response from Iran against the U.S. is unlikely, at least for now.
However, the enrichment of uranium is a different story altogether. It appears Iran is determined to continue with its nuclear program, focusing on enrichment. This comes in the wake of various actions and shifts in geopolitical dynamics. The idea of Iran having a “right” to enrichment, even under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), is a point being raised.
The context here is important. There’s a history of strained relations, broken agreements, and accusations of clandestine activities. The U.S.’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, or JCPOA, which was partly motivated by the belief that Iran was not adhering to the agreement’s limitations, is central to the current state of affairs.
The argument about the U.S. and Russia as unreliable allies is a recurring theme. This lack of trust might be pushing countries, including Iran, towards seeking the security that nuclear weapons are perceived to offer. The perceived need to protect sovereignty is a major driver.
There’s also an undercurrent of skepticism regarding the efficacy of military intervention in curbing nuclear ambitions. The thought is that bombing a country’s facilities might backfire, potentially accelerating the very program it’s meant to halt. In essence, the U.S.’s actions might have inadvertently incentivized Iran to pursue nuclear weapons more vigorously.
The claim that Iran has been “two weeks away from a bomb” for decades is a recurring theme, suggesting that the situation is more complex than some might suggest. Concerns about hidden enrichment activities and undeclared material are mentioned. The issue isn’t just enriching, but also potentially enriching to weapons grade, and attempting to hide this enrichment from inspectors.
One line of thought proposes that the U.S.’s actions have inadvertently legitimized, or even encouraged, the pursuit of nuclear weapons. If the U.S. bombs a country, that country’s actions are seen not as a deterrent, but a means to achieve nuclear deterrence.
It’s also relevant to mention that it is not that easy to get nukes, some people claim it.
There is a strong sense that the situation is fraught with peril. The prospect of nuclear war, particularly in the Middle East, is understandably alarming. The potential for escalation, with Israel and other players involved, adds another layer of concern. The domino effect, with everyone launching on everyone, is a terrifying thought.
The economic repercussions of any conflict, especially one involving the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal, are also raised.
The prevailing mood seems to be one of pessimism and a sense of inevitability. The belief that Iran is moving towards nuclear weapons is widespread.