So he admits they aren't developing Nukes then
I simply think the JCPOA is too lax, it's not strict enough on Iran.
Lifting the U.N. sanctions on Iran's ballistic missile program as a concession to get them to enter in to the JCPOA was just unwise. A country's nuclear program is divided in to three main parts, development, weaponization, and delivery. Ballistic missiles would fall firmly under the delivery category. Arguing that the JCPOA has stopped Iran from developing nuclear weapons, as they continue to launch and test ballistic missiles which are an integral part to nuclear payload delivery, is just untrue. According to the FDD, Iran has conducted at least 23 ballistic missile tests since the JCPOA was ratified. It's unacceptable.
My personal biggest problem with the JCPOA comes from the "sunset" clause. Iran's nuclear restrictions should not have an expiration date. Iran claims that they will abide by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty after the restrictions expire. If anyone believed that BULLSHIT there would be no reason to need the JCPOA in the first place.
And for the record, Iran has violated the JCPOA on multiple occasions, which highlights another inadequacy with the JCPOA. There are no agreed upon consequences for Iran violating the term of the deal. The looming prospect is to reimpose all UN sanctions on Iran, which is the equivalent of the death penalty. When the death penalty is your only option as a punishment, violations go unpunished. There was no punishment when Iran on multiple occasions has been found to have more heavy water (a form of water used in nuclear reactors) than permitted by the deal. There was no punishment when according the FDD Tehran has found and are using new ways to conduct mechanical testing of nuclear centrifuges, a clear violation of the JCPOA.
As a iranian living in europe, i wonder how many people here have actually been to iran or even know anything about it except what the media is telling them. yeah the regime is bad, but i've been there a few times and it's nothing like the media is trying to show. I am really dissapointed in a lot of people on this forum for judging a whole country without even knowing what is going on. Who knows maybe this will lead to war or it will just be some words both parties throw at each other, but everyone should stop and dive a little bit into what is really going on before judging and making assumptions
Another case of classic whataboutism. Also, please define "banging the drums of war". I doubt anyone in our current administration openly said we have to kill every Iranian. How people are defending the disgraceful things that were said in that parliament is beyond me
for the record bmatt07 has sex with goats
i have shown the same amount of citation as you so its probs true
as stated a thousand times in this thread theyve said theyre complying but just for shit let's look... oh first resultI'm posting on a message board, I'm not writing a research paper. If you are too lazy to use Google to look up press releases issued by the IAEA directly, then so be it, I'm not doing it for you.
as stated a thousand times in this thread theyve said theyre complying but just for shit let's look... oh first result
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a316cd895681
"The quarterly report marked the ninth successive time the IAEA has attested that Iran is meeting its commitments since the nuclear deal between Iran and six major powers, including the United States, was implemented early last year."
If you have something that says otherwise you should post it instead of just saying 'oh it's true just Google it lol it's a message board'
until then pretty sure you have sex with goats and I've shown as much evidence of it as you have. It's easy just Google it you lazy bum
Another case of classic whataboutism. Also, please define "banging the drums of war". I doubt anyone in our current administration openly said we have to kill every Iranian. How people are defending the disgraceful things that were said in that parliament is beyond me
Wrong. Iran was allowed to work on conventional ballistic missiles, not nuclear capable ones. That's why Iran stopped testing Safir I guess.Based on the The Daily episode I listed to this morning (NYT), it does seem like the deal itself wasn't that great...the issue really is the timing of all of this and the way the U.S. will be portrayed (the country that backed out of the deal first).
Essentially deal boiled down to
- Iran will stop developing Nuclear weapons immediately (shutdown uranium enrichment facilities)
- Sanctions will be lifted allowing Iran's oil industry to bring in substantial revenue again
- All other developments are allowed to continue (including missile development potentially allowing the transportation of nuclear weapons)
- Iran with the added revenue can continue funding extremists organizations except with more funding this time (revitalized oil industry)
- This deal will expire in 25 years so Iran can continue developing nuclear weapons if they wanted to (by then missiles will be ready?)
Based on the The Daily episode I listed to this morning (NYT), it does seem like the deal itself wasn't that great...the issue really is the timing of all of this and the way the U.S. will be portrayed (the country that backed out of the deal first).
Essentially deal boiled down to
- Iran will stop developing Nuclear weapons immediately (shutdown uranium enrichment facilities)
- Sanctions will be lifted allowing Iran's oil industry to bring in substantial revenue again
- All other developments are allowed to continue (including missile development potentially allowing the transportation of nuclear weapons)
- Iran with the added revenue can continue funding extremists organizations
- This deal will expire in 25 years so Iran can continue developing nuclear weapons if they wanted to (by then missiles will be ready?)
Based on the The Daily episode I listed to this morning (NYT), it does seem like the deal itself wasn't that great...the issue really is the timing of all of this and the way the U.S. will be portrayed (the country that backed out of the deal first).
Essentially deal boiled down to
- Iran will stop developing Nuclear weapons immediately (shutdown uranium enrichment facilities)
- Sanctions will be lifted allowing Iran's oil industry to bring in substantial revenue again
- All other developments are allowed to continue (including missile development potentially allowing the transportation of nuclear weapons)
- Iran with the added revenue can continue funding extremists organizations except with more funding this time (revitalized oil industry)
- This deal will expire in 25 years so Iran can continue developing nuclear weapons if they wanted to (by then missiles will be ready?)
I looked up the heavy water violations and from what the Reuters article has on the topic it looks like the shipped the excess out of the country, as required by the JCPOA.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKBN18T244
The fact that we know this at all is reason enough to keep the deal in my eyes. Without it we'd have no good way of keeping an eye on their progress and they'd continue with it in spite of sanctions.
North Korea has successfully acquired nuclear weapons and no longer has the regional support network Iran does. What's the alternative to the deal? Bombing nuclear sites?
it's not even the timing, it's the rationale. if one president is going to trash a treaty based on personal dislike of a previous one, making deals of any sort with america is a waste of time.
it's reasonable to believe that the strategy of "permit economic growth so that a healthy middle class can grow up wanting a less extreme society" isn't guaranteed to work, but burning america's ability to engage in effective diplomacy to the ground just weakens us globally.
it doesn't help that half the rhetoric surrounding the repeal is out to frame things as if Iran had already broken the deal just by existing. i feel like the administration is trying to give a vibe of "they made us do this by just being too untrustworthy to treat with respect."
as stated a thousand times in this thread theyve said theyre complying but just for shit let's look... oh first result
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a316cd895681
"The quarterly report marked the ninth successive time the IAEA has attested that Iran is meeting its commitments since the nuclear deal between Iran and six major powers, including the United States, was implemented early last year."
If you have something that says otherwise you should post it instead of just saying 'oh it's true just Google it lol it's a message board'
until then pretty sure you have sex with goats and I've shown as much evidence of it as you have that Iran has violated it's agreements. It's easy just Google it you lazy bum
This was brought up too many times... Enough.I don't like that inspectors do not have access to Iran's military bases. We should simply trust Iran and their word that they are abiding by the deal in full? We have absolutely no way of telling whether these military sites are presently being used for possibly illicit purposes. I'm not ever trusting a country that is a central banker for terrorism.
The IAEA said Iran was upholding their nuclear commitments just three days ago.I'm posting on a message board, I'm not writing a research paper. If you are too lazy to use Google to look up press releases issued by the IAEA directly, then so be it, I'm not doing it for you.
A treaty having an expiration date is nothing unusual, they normaly get replaced by a new one or the treaty gets renegotiated before expiring. Trying to paint this as something nefarious shows just how biased you are.Iran wasn't just existing, they continued funding extremist groups. I mean the argument could be made that Iran would just win all around in this deal under their current regime. The added revenue from foreign investments would allow the government to continue funding questionable groups, except this time they'll have even more funding and Iran will be modernized from foreign backed investment. Win win for Iran. Why didn't Iran allow the deal to be valid after 25 years? So they could be a developed country AND have nuclear weapons eventually anyways? Under this scenario the only countries that would look dumb would be the countries that allowed Iran to get to that point. A regime change is needed imo.
It's such an infuriatingly stupid complaint... "The treaty doesn't address ALL of our grievances, so let's just shred it!"A treaty having an expiration date is nothing unusual, they normaly get replaced by a new one or the treaty gets renegotiated before expiring. Trying to paint this as something nefarious shows just how biased you are.
This was brought up too many times... Enough.
No country in the world would allow unfettered access to all their military sites. That's insane. You will never get such a deal.
Besides, like it's been pointed out a billion times, on the off chance that they used undeclared sites for their nuclear program, the 24 days notice that I'm sure you'll point to as to why this doesn't work, it doesn't give them a chance to hide nuclear activity of any kind. You can't clean up the traces those materials leave.
Oh god, is this trolling or just plain stupidity? There's already been an independent institute verifying their compliance.Well.. I'm never going to trust a country that funds state terrorism, nor should anyone. I'm not going to take them at their word and believe they are abiding by the deal without someone verifying compliance.
If it's an issue of pride, that's fine. You sanction crude oil exports until Iran has to make a decision. Their pride or their economy. Let's see which buckles first.
A treaty having an expiration date is nothing unusual, they normaly get replaced by a new one or the treaty gets renegotiated before expiring. Trying to paint this as something nefarious shows just how biased you are.
Biased huh...look in the mirror?
I'll be honest, when I first saw Trump break this deal I was in the usual up in arms "I can't believe that nihilistic fool did something dumb again," I mean a headline like "Tump Breaks Treaty/Peace deal" will always look bad. But at the same time I didn't really know the inner workings of the deal/Iran's actions at this point after the deal was signed. I'm getting most of my information from The Daily (NYT), which admittedly could be biased but it's the source I choose to trust. Iran hasn't really given any reason to be trusted based on their history.
The IAEA said Iran was upholding their nuclear commitments just three days ago.
Oh god, is this trolling or just plain stupidity? There's already been an independent institute verifying their compliance.
What the fuck
Except for the fact that they have complied with the agreement. As posted (with citation) multiple times in this thread.
That's cool and all, but doesn't answer the point I was making: What exactly makes a treaty with an expiration date a bad one? I mean not having an expiration date seems to be important for you otherwise you wouldn't have emphased it.Biased huh...look in the mirror?
I'll be honest, when I first saw Trump break this deal I was in the usual up in arms "I can't believe that nihilistic fool did something dumb again," I mean a headline like "Tump Breaks Treaty/Peace deal" will always look bad. But at the same time I didn't really know the inner workings of the deal/Iran's actions at this point after the deal was signed. I'm getting most of my information from The Daily (NYT), which admittedly could be biased but it's the source I choose to trust. Iran hasn't really given any reason to be trusted based on their history.
Why are you supporting the decision of the US government?Well.. I'm never going to trust a country that funds state terrorism, nor should anyone.
Who cares about trust? That's why there's an independent group confirming their compliance. If we opperated on trust, there would be no need for these sorts of agreements. Sadam Hussein wasn't trustworthy, but it turned out their WMD program wasn't what we claimed still. If anything, history has shown that we should trust the work of the IAEA and not make hasty decisions on compliance issues like this.Biased huh...look in the mirror?
I'll be honest, when I first saw Trump break this deal I was in the usual up in arms "I can't believe that nihilistic fool did something dumb again," I mean a headline like "Tump Breaks Treaty/Peace deal" will always look bad. But at the same time I didn't really know the inner workings of the deal/Iran's actions at this point after the deal was signed. I'm getting most of my information from The Daily (NYT), which admittedly could be biased but it's the source I choose to trust. Iran hasn't really given any reason to be trusted based on their history.
Well.. I'm never going to trust a country that funds state terrorism, nor should anyone. I'm not going to take them at their word and believe they are abiding by the deal without someone verifying compliance.
If it's an issue of pride, that's fine. You sanction crude oil exports until Iran has to make a decision. Their pride or their economy. Let's see which buckles first.
This clown is literally admitting Iran stopped their nuclear weapons program.
For the record, I'm not against a deal with Iran. I just don't believe the deal that was in place was a very good one, there were too many loopholes for Iran. I would be in favor of a more strict deal.
Iran's continued development of advanced ballistic missiles would need to be addressed in any deal moving forward. How any nuclear deterrent agreement was reached without addressing the delivery method for said nuclear weapons is simply baffling to me. They go hand-in-hand.
There needs to be consequences when Iran violates the deal as a whole, which they inevitably will. When Iran was found to have excess heavy water on multiple occasions, they simply had to ship the excess out of their country. That's not a deterrent, that's not a punishment. Nothing of consequence happened to Iran. There needs to be clear-cut punishments for violations of the agreement.
I would like to see Iran permanently barred from ever acquiring heavily enriched uranium, no temporary clauses that expire. The only purpose of fissile material is for the manufacturing of nuclear weapons.
I don't like that inspectors do not have access to Iran's military bases. We should simply trust Iran and their word that they are abiding by the deal in full? We have absolutely no way of telling whether these military sites are presently being used for possibly illicit purposes. I'm not ever trusting a country that is a central banker for terrorism.
I know this and I highly recommend you guys listen to that Daily episode (unless you guys consider NYT fake news now). The deal was very broad. It would be very easy to for Iran to be in "compliance" if strictly following what was on that very broad deal. But it's important to recognize there are other factors in this that would allow Iran to get around the deal, continue questionable tests/funding, but still "comply."
Seriously, look at the deal/listen to that episode.
im saying citeTo clarify..
You're stating that since the JCPOA was ratified, that Iran has never had a single violation to that agreement?
I want to verify your stance before I eviscerate you with "citations."
Or Rabinowitz, an assistant professor of international relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, wrote in an op-ed that Netanyahu and the "Project Amad" documents did not prove that Iran violated the JCPOA. However, the materials obtained by Israel showed that Iran violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Rabinowitz added.
"While not a clear violation of the JCPOA, by possessing the archive, Iran is violating its obligations as a Non-Nuclear Weapon State (NNWS) party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," she wrote. "NNWS members such as Iran are obligated by the treaty 'not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.' Possessing documents about producing nuclear weapons contradicts the spirit of the treaty because such documents could promote nuclear proliferation — either directly by the country possessing the archive or by a transfer of know-how to other actors seeking nuclear weapons.
"That's on top of Iran's more serious violation of actively trying to develop nuclear weapons before 2003." (Iran signed the NPT in 1970.)
The IAEA has found that Iran has complied with the JCPOA. The Trump administration has not disputed this assessment, and it certified in July 2017 that Iran was meeting the terms of the deal.
i mean this doesnt show violations (im not saying anything about this post specifically ac30, im just acknowledging it because you brought it up earlier)I looked up the heavy water violations and from what the Reuters article has on the topic it looks like the shipped the excess out of the country, as required by the JCPOA.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKBN18T244
The fact that we know this at all is reason enough to keep the deal in my eyes. Without it we'd have no good way of keeping an eye on their progress and they'd continue with it in spite of sanctions.
North Korea has successfully acquired nuclear weapons and no longer has the regional support network Iran does. What's the alternative to the deal? Bombing nuclear sites?
Nothing short of invasion will assure anywhere anytime inspection. US (morally) can't just make everybody act the way they like. Every thing has expiry date, including treaties. At this point you just want Iran to unconditionally bend to the US.Well.. I'm never going to trust a country that funds state terrorism, nor should anyone. I'm not going to take them at their word and believe they are abiding by the deal without someone verifying compliance.
If it's an issue of pride, that's fine. You sanction crude oil exports until Iran has to make a decision. Their pride or their economy. Let's see which buckles first.
Last news I remember from Iran was the government violently cracking down on college student protests and arresting women protesting the burqa.
Iran needs to change its ways before we give them money again.
First, that was Iranian money. It is pretty rich to say US should sanction for internal issues considering what other US business partners are doing.Last news I remember from Iran was the government violently cracking down on college student protests and arresting women protesting the burqa.
Iran needs to change its ways before we give them money again.