Shahram Sabzevari

Data Scientist/ML Engineer

[Reza Nasri @RezaNasri1]

Tucker Carlson reports that Benjamin Netanyahu is pressing Donald Trump to launch a nuclear strike on Iran. Before that idea gains any ground in Washington, its consequences need to be understood. More than 180 countries renounced nuclear weapons under a set of explicit promises. A nuclear attack on Iran would show those promises to be worthless.

The bargain is written into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty itself. Under Article II, non-nuclear-weapon states agreed not to acquire nuclear arms. In return, they were promised three things: the inalienable right to peaceful nuclear energy, good-faith negotiations toward disarmament by the nuclear powers, and - when the treaty was extended indefinitely - assurances that nuclear weapons would not be used against them, noted by the Security Council in Resolution 984. In Iran’s case, the first promise has already been broken: its peaceful programme has been sanctioned and bombed. The second has gone unmet for decades. A nuclear strike would break the third.

The regime urging this strike has never accepted any part of that bargain. Israel refuses to join the NPT, has never acknowledged the arsenal it built at Dimona, and has ignored Security Council Resolution 487 calling on it to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. When Mordechai Vanunu exposed the programme, Israeli agents abducted him in Rome and he spent 18 years in prison. Under the Begin Doctrine, Israel claims the right to bomb any state in the region it suspects of seeking the capability it already possesses, while demanding total transparency from its neighbours and accepting none for itself. At the same time, Israel stands accused of genocide and of widespread war crimes and crimes against humanity. Its forces have repeatedly violated the sovereignty of neighbouring states through cross-border strikes and occupations, and it has pursued an openly aggressive posture across the region. Its prime minister is wanted by the International Criminal Court. This is the war criminal now urging Washington to use the most destructive weapon ever built against a member of the treaty his regime has spent half a century evading.

Iran’s record points the other way. It negotiated the JCPOA, which the Security Council endorsed unanimously in Resolution 2231, and the IAEA confirmed its compliance in report after report. Washington walked away anyway. When Iran returned to the table, it was attacked twice: days before a scheduled round with U.S. envoys, and hours after talks in Geneva that Oman’s foreign minister said had brought the two sides close to a genuine agreement.

Article X allows any party to withdraw if extraordinary events related to the treaty have jeopardised its supreme interests. A nuclear attack on a member that negotiated, complied, and kept returning to diplomacy would hand that argument to every other member. Islamic countries will rightly see an ethno-supremacist and racist ideology behind this use of nuclear weapons. A nuclear strike against a Muslim-majority nation, urged by a regime that has long defined itself in ethno-religious terms and that has never accepted the restraints of the NPT, would be read not as a narrow security measure but as the expression of a deeper hierarchy of peoples. That perception would further erode confidence in the treaty among its Islamic members and accelerate momentum toward withdrawal. The treaty rests on a single premise: that a state can give up the bomb and still be safe. If that premise fails in Iran, parliaments, politicians, and publics across the membership will start asking whether staying in serves their security. Some governments will decide that it does not. Withdrawals, individual or collective, would follow, and the non-proliferation regime would simply not survive them.

@TuckerCarlson

[Brett Erickson @BrettErickson28]

“How DARE Iran threaten to attack infrastructure while we threaten to attack their infrastructure!”

[Assal Rad @AssalRad]

Look at the date.

[Tucker Carlson @TuckerCarlson]

Under pressure from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran. The target would be Pickax Mountain in central Iran, where Israeli intelligence claims the Iranian government has restarted its nuclear enrichment program. No conventional weapon in the American arsenal can penetrate 300 feet of solid granite to destroy the tunnels where enrichment is supposedly taking place. The only military option is a nuclear strike. Netanyahu has been pushing hard for one. “Bibi calls Trump about it every day,” says an informed observer.

Netanyahu is cornered and desperate. After last week’s election results, he can’t form a government unless Trump intervenes directly in Israeli politics and brokers a deal with other parties that gives Netanyahu 61 seats in the Knesset. Otherwise, he is out as prime minister and on his way to ignominy, investigations and possibly jail. Netanyahu must stay close to Trump. He needs this war.

To that end, he’s applied maximum pressure to his closest allies in the administration, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CENTCOM commander Brad Cooper. Both oppose a negotiated settlement to the war they’ve so grievously mismanaged; both are pushing to restart major combat operations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA director John Ratcliffe are also following Netanyahu’s lead, as are leaders of the Democratic Party. In a recent meeting on the subject, former president Barack Obama said he opposes the current Iran peace deal being drafted in Doha.

The rest of America’s longtime allies in the Middle East are terrified by the prospect of more war. On September 27th, Netanyahu flew secretly to Abu Dhabi to enlist the UAE in his lobbying effort for a final attack on Iran. The Emiratis refused. After eight months of conflict, Gulf economies are teetering. So are global energy and fertilizer markets. They won’t recover soon. Globally, there are a total of about 850 supertankers used to transport oil from producers to the rest of the world. In October alone, 11 of them were badly damaged in Hormuz. At this pace, a global depression is imminent. A nuclear strike would radically accelerate the destruction. Fallout from a ground explosion at Pickax Mountain would contaminate the Persian Gulf, poisoning the water supply for 100 million people.

And those are just some of the immediate consequences for the region. The rest of the world is every bit as exposed. No country other than the United States has ever used a nuclear weapon in war. Some would like to. An American nuclear attack on Iran would set a new precedent. The Russians have already told at least two other governments that an American nuclear strike on Iran would free them to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Pakistan and India would be tempted to do the same against each other, as would North Korea against Seoul. After the first nuclear strike, World War Three is inevitable. That war would be short and final.

We’ve been sleepwalking toward this moment for months. Since February, the administration has quietly rewritten America’s nuclear doctrine to make first use of so-called “battlefield nukes” easier and therefore more likely. No one in Washington in either party seems bothered by this. Now we’re on the brink of it.

Close observers say Trump is likely to decide by next weekend whether or not to use nuclear weapons. That would be November 7, six days from now. To his credit, he’s hesitating. At the moment, Trump is listening to his vice president, JD Vance, and to his envoy and friend Steve Witkoff, both of whom argue a deal with Iran can be made.

They’re right, though it won’t be simple. The Iranians are famously frustrating to negotiate with under any circumstances, and elements of that government have become more radical since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family were killed in February. After decades of isolation, even relatively moderate Iranian leaders seem confused by how decisions are made in the West. (There is a widespread belief in Tehran, for example, that the United States government controls Israel.) But overall, people who have spoken to decision-makers in Iran say there is consensus there that more war is bad for everyone and a deal is worth making.

One group that hasn’t been consulted so far is the global population — the hundreds of millions of people who will be killed along with their children if Trump is pushed by Netanyahu into launching a nuclear strike next week. Now would be the time for them to speak up.

[Assal Rad @AssalRad]

So, Israel (a nuclear-armed state) is pushing the U.S. (a nuclear-armed state) to nuke Iran (not a nuclear-armed state) because Iran is a “nuclear threat.”

It’s the same logic that tells you genocide is “self-defense.”

[Shahram Sabzevari @ShSabzevari]

@FoxNews American politics is a comedy show!
Democratic party is the clown and Republicans are the bully.
AIPAC is the producer.

[Reza Nasri @RezaNasri1]

Every move Washington makes should be met with skepticism. Diplomatic outreach? It may be the prelude to a blame game. An offer? It may be a setup. Talk of giving diplomacy more time? It may be a ruse to lull Iran into complacency before an attack.

[Shahram Sabzevari @ShSabzevari]

@BarakRavid Hell of a logic!
You elected an unstable phedophil as president. Your so called checks and balances don't work due to being Israil's slave, then you are advising Iran to take a bad deal with somone that dropped out of a deal once then attacked Iran twice during negotiations?!!

[Shahram Sabzevari @ShSabzevari]

@tparsi Only if some stupid people could listen or read or comprehend we would have a much better world.

[Shahram Sabzevari @ShSabzevari]

@JavadEmam یک‌لحظه توییت را بد خواندم و فکر‌کردم آقای علی اکبری همچین صحبتی کرده است.
تعجب کردم و خوشحال شدم که حرف منطقی از تریبون نماز‌جمعه زده شده.
دوباره خواندم و پیدم ایشان مخاطب کلام است. پس کماکان در بر همان پاشنه می‌چرخد.

[Karmel Melamed @KarmelMelamed]

The last I checked, Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, & Abu Musa islands in the Persian Gulf have been under the sovereignty of Iran since the time of the ancient Achaemenid Empire.

The UAE didn't even exisit until 1971!

Carney, sit your ass down about "occupation"!🤡

[P @popsonlinenow]

Abu Musa, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb are Iranian territory. Canada has no right to attribute them to the UAE in any statement. Iran’s sovereignty is not negotiable, and its land is not a diplomatic bargaining chip. Ottawa must respect Iran’s territorial integrity. @MarkJCarney

[خرس نفتی @PolarBe79150109]

Abu Musa, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb are Iranian territory. Canada has no right to attribute them to the UAE in any statement. Iran’s sovereignty is not negotiable, and its land is not a diplomatic bargaining chip. Ottawa must respect Iran’s territorial integrity. @MarkJCarney

[Shahram Sabzevari @ShSabzevari]

@MarkJCarney Your stance on Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, & Abu Musa, which are an inseparable part of Iran's territory & under the undisputed sovereignty of Iran, is completely baseless and wrong.
Focus on Canada's ever declining economy instead & shut the f**k up.

[Alireza Salimi @AR_Salimii]

I regret voting for the Liberal Party and @MarkJCarney.

By signing a joint statement with the UAE regime echoing baseless claims over the Iranian islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa, this government has violated the fundamental principle of respecting UN member states' national sovereignty and acted against international law.

These three Iranian islands will remain Iranian forever.

[Rose @OliviaPopeCA]

Dear stupid @MarkJCarney,

Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, & Lesser Tunb belong to the Iranian people. This is NOT up for discussion.

Please focus on the problems in Canada you were elected to address. I will never, ever vote Liberal again.

https://t.co/fNQAD33bUk

[Reza Nasri @RezaNasri1]

The manufactured outrage over a report that Iran is allegedly buying weapons is absurd. Whatever the truth of this particular report, Iran has the right to defend itself. Full stop.

Listen to how the aggressors and their retinue of media outlets, PR firms and think tanks describe it. Iran's purchases are "clandestine." Iran is "defying" their sanctions. Iran is "evading" them. As if a country under bombardment owed its attackers an inventory of its defenses.

Basically, their position is: we may unleash all our power on you, and you must respect our illegal sanctions and disarm, so that we can strike your power grids, bridges, hospitals and schools at the lowest possible cost to ourselves.

The UN Charter calls self-defense an "inherent right." It does not add "subject to the approval of the attacker."

[Shahram Sabzevari @ShSabzevari]

@MarioNawfal You can access him? Ask him the same thing again. Love to hear how he spin it.

[Shahram Sabzevari @ShSabzevari]

@TheELongWave @CanadianYYZ Looking at historical data in york region the peaks repeated every 7 to 10 years. So starting from peak of 22 how likely you think we see another peak at 2030 to 32? How big of a peak you think it will be? Any idea?

[Shahram Sabzevari @ShSabzevari]

@CIJAinfo @CBCNews Another projection!