Taking out Iranian nuclear facilities is a starkly clear issue that tells you if someone is really anti-war or just reflexively hates the west. Preventing a country that wants to destroy America (and Israel) from getting the bomb —with 0 US casualties! — is unambiguously good

Zak Kukoff

https://x.com/zck/status/1936590199170982176?s=46

There is no such thing as “unambiguously good” in war though. We don’t know what reactions and consequences this will bring

politics

here’s why a preemptive strike on iran’s nuclear infrastructure is not only a justified, but necessary, act of defense to prevent an irreversible threat:

1. the iranian regime has explicitly and repeatedly called for the destruction of israel and the united states

2. the regime is actively developing nuclear weapons capabilities

3. nuclear weapons would give the regime irreversible destructive power

4. the regime’s stated intentions, combined with such power, pose an existential threat

5. deterrence is ineffective once a hostile actor gains nuclear capability

6. a preemptive strike can materially delay or disable this capability

there’s nothing ambiguous about a regime that openly calls for our destruction gaining irreversible power

waiting to see what happens next is effectively a surrender

building @emptyblock / prev director of research @coinmetrics

there’s nothing ambiguous about a regime that openly calls for our destruction gaining irreversible power

waiting to see what happens next is effectively a surrender

https://farcaster.xyz/zd/0x1c7cefcb

I said there is no such thing as “unambiguously good,” not that there is no such thing as “unambiguous”

War is not black and white, no matter how you want to twist it