u/Hopeful_Chair_7129

From an American perspective, Iranian nuclear weapons are usually framed as a threat. But I’m wondering how this looks from inside Iran. If your country had been sanctioned, threatened, surrounded by hostile powers, and treated as a secondary actor in a region where some states already have nuclear protection or backing, would you see nuclear weapons as dangerous escalation, or as a way to guarantee sovereignty?

I’m not asking whether the Iranian regime is good. I’m asking whether nuclear weapons can look materially rational from the perspective of a weaker state trying to avoid domination.

From my perspective, it seems at least understandable why the Iranian state would see nuclear capability as rational deterrence, and why some citizens might view it as a guarantee of sovereignty rather than simple aggression.

What do social media posts reveal that a candidate’s record, donors, policy commitments, and political base do not? When tweet coverage becomes disproportionate, what incentives drive it, and who benefits from the resulting definition of an acceptable candidate?

I’m working through a basic question for a personal writing project: what exactly makes someone a voter?

Is a voter:

• someone who actually casts a vote,
• anyone who has the legal right to vote,
• someone who is registered,
• or a person occupying a particular role within a political institution?

For example, does someone remain a voter while no election is happening, while choosing not to vote, or while being temporarily unable to vote?

I’m not really looking for the dictionary definition by itself. I’m interested in how people understand the category and what conditions have to exist before someone can meaningfully be called a voter.

There isn’t a particular answer I’m trying to prove here. I’m mostly looking for definitions, disagreements, and examples that might expose something I have overlooked.

I’m asking this sincerely rather than as rage bait:

Before this MOU, the military campaign had not succeeded in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and doing so by force appeared likely to require a substantial further escalation.

For those who believe accepting the agreement was the wrong choice, what realistic alternative do you think was preferable?

Was the expectation that the United States should continue the war, sanctions, and blockade despite mounting Iranian civilian deaths and economic destruction until Iran capitulated? Or, if that failed, should the United States eventually have committed conventional forces to reopen the strait?

There may be another viable course I am overlooking, but criticism of the agreement seems incomplete unless it identifies an alternative and accounts for its probable costs.

Edit:

Thanks for all of the answers. I’m going to take a break from responding.