That's like poking a bear and then halfway through your shenanigans claim you'll have to put it down because you're in danger. What a bunch of hollow rhetoric. There's 3 sentences in your paragraph and each one is just a slogan. Each one vague enough that it means both nothing and anything you can think of.

Diverting from the usual warmongering is not isolationism, in fact, the problem you allude to is the result of the former, not the other way around.

I know it's a crazy idea but perhaps we should look at our failed approaches from recent history and try to learn from it. But judging from your edit, you have an extremely short attention span mixed with tunnel vision. Where were you when the US and its allies assassinated people inside Iran? Funded terrorist groups to carry out attacks in Iran? Sabotaged their nuclear facilities? Or, you know, when the idea of another pre-emptive attack on that nation was so imminent that one presidential candidate figured it'd be funny to fuel that by singing "bomb bomb Iran", based on nothing but the lie that they were close to getting a nuclear bomb?

Was all that a festering problem that Iran should've responded to, or is it different when you're on the receiving end?

Just out of curiosity, how do you believe blockades are enforced?

What do you think happens(ed) to ships approaching Gaza BEFORE the war?

An Iranian proxy has been shooting civilian shipping and civilian crews from all countries for the last year. There are problems one cannot simply ignore.

Hmm yes I wonder why the Houthis just suddenly decided to attack a global supply line

Did Israel try stopping their genocide.

Some problems are very easy to solve.

So he's not a fan of apartheid per se but just hates Iran and feels the victims of Iran's oppression of women - ie Persians - need to suffer for not taking state-orchestrated mass murder lying down?

One wonders what that guy is thinking sometimes.

Incorrect, not waging war is better than spending another 20 trillion killing civilians.

Given what we've seen over the last little while, do you think Israel won't be able and willing to topple the regime if they don't have a lethal gun pointed towards Israel? There's pressure from the outside, and from the inside on them. They have to keep terrorising to maintain the internal pressure. They have to be able to stop Israel from taking them out as a result of their terrorising. I don't know if their current arsenal is a deterrent enough for that. If I were a supreme leader who wanted to stay in power, I'd be overturning mandatory prayer for the nuclear scientists and enginners working overtime to get to a test detonation (not over Israel) ASAP. As a supreme leader I feel like last year, perhaps even weeks ago, I did have the option to not make nukes. After the attacks in Lebanon that left my primary deterrent in an unknown state of degradation, I'm not feeling so lucky.

No, they stop developing nuclear weapons they get wiped out by an unwarranted US invasion. The only reason north Korea exists is because of their nuclear program, and their weapons of mass destruction before that. It's the only way to actually prevent the US from invading you or putting a military base in you.