I dont think usa was secular ever (in the france kind of secular).

but if you mean that religious extremism retoric have become the norm in US , that is correct and kinda obvious.

to be honest I can't even fault the folk that are christian Zionist (an weird combo) because a lot of money have been poured into it. And if last decade in US shown anything is that money(greed) is king.

and I don't think this is reversible because the rich elites in USA are getting more and more concentrated power and put more money into those extremists.

a good example is just observing oracle founder Larry Ellison and Peter Thiel and palanter Alex Karp owner and others like them and see them become even more ghoul-like and very direct and if you face. they no longer cover up their inhuman genocidal ideas behind interest groups and shell think-tanks.

way less than jewish isis having nuke and acting like barbaric god chosen people.

way less than germany or japan. if you think they are reformed... then sure america was reformed after it killed all the native americans.

go watch any real politikcs about iran and nuke like john mershaimer. maybe you learn some history.

I judge conutries and regimes by their acts. in international arena iran behaved way better than all the other countires you named.

I support Iran getting the bomb. In the regional context, it would be an overwhelmingly positive thing. History suggests it would be a great mellowing influence on the whole region. The region is unstable right now because there's one nuclear power in the region without any counterbalancing nuclear power to hold them in check. Israel, a democratic theocracy, now acts with impunity against every country in the region. The US acted the same way prior to 1948, threatening to use its nukes in ways and scenarios we would now consider unthinkable.

Every single time a nation has been near the bomb, they have been portrayed as a bunch of crazy nutjobs that are going to blow up the world. Russian and China were both portrayed as fanatical Communists willing to die for the cause. India and Pakistan were religious fanatics that were going to blow up the world. North Korea was a dictatorship ruled by a madman that was going to level Seoul. Every single time a non-Western nation is close to getting the bomb, that nation has historically been portrayed as being lead by world-risking madmen or fanatics of one sort or another. The narrative is always that only Western countries can responsibly hold the bomb, and all those other potential nuclear powers will handle the power poorer that the enlightened Western nations have.

And yet, time and time again, that doesn't happen. It turns out that rulers, whether elected or dictatorial, tend to care most about maintaining their own power. And even if they think they can miraculously personally survive a nuclear war; no one wants to rule over a radiation-blasted hellscape. And no one wants to see their homeland nuked, even an evil tyrant.

If Tehran gets the bomb, it won't immediately use it on Israel. Why? Because the Iranians don't want to be vaporized. Israel has its own nuclear arsenal, including a submarine-based second strike capability. If they nuke Israel, every major city in Iran is going up in a mushroom cloud.

It turns out, MAD actually works. And while I would prefer that no nation have nukes, the only thing more unstable than two nuclear-armed rivals is when there are two rivals and only one of them has nukes.

This is why I want Iran to have the bomb. Do I think Iran is lead by particularly good people? Not at all. But I trust the Ayatollahs with the bomb about as much as I trust the Israelis with the bomb. And Iran getting nukes would greatly stabilize a region that has been so destabilized by having only a single unbalanced nuclear power.