It's quite clear in view of recent events that the mullahs aren't interested in negotiating for the good of their people. It is obvious to anyone that if Iran put all the resources they poured into secret nuclear facilities and missiles into economic development, infrastructure, and education, Iran would be in a completely different place today. Sadly, the regime's primary objective is self-preservation, and the only language it understands is violence.
The issue isn’t the amount of spending; they could spend nothing and would still get bombed because they are antagonistic to the US and its allies/vassals.
They are a theocratic regime which is not supported by 80% of its population. Being gay is punishable by death. They employ surveillance from China to ensure hijabs are worn by women at all times. They ban access to the internet. Chants of "Death to America" are their government's routine greeting for 50 years. They place military equipment in schools and hospitals deliberately, viewing US compassion as a weakness. They recruit child soldiers and have them publicly stationed at military targets.
There is definitely "antagonism," but to act as if the Iranian people would not bomb their own government if they could... it's a bit much.
Eh, it's also clear that nations without nuclear arms exist at the whims of great powers, particularly now. "behave and we'll let you have some prosperity unless you need defense in which case good luck" isn't exactly a strong argument.
And the people in power in Iran actively are not in favor of the good of their people, a large proportion of which want nothing to do with their religious fundamentalism.
How do you convince oppressive zealots to play nice for peace when their whole existence rests on having enemies? "death to America!" being the popular chant at political rallies.
> It is obvious to anyone that if Iran put all the resources they poured into secret nuclear facilities and missiles into economic development, infrastructure, and education, Iran would be in a completely different place today
> if it spent more money on education and less on missiles
Wait, isn't the US has literally the highest spending on education in the world? And it is precisely the highest spending in the world on missiles that make it possible. So less money on missiles would mean less money on education.
