-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
U.S. violates JCPOA; Trump withdraws from Iran nuclear deal & reimposes economic sanctions (UPDATE)
- Thread starter GaimeGuy
- Start date
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?
man if only there was some way to make sure they didnt develop nukes
The Middle East and the many nations therein are so rich with history and culture that it's a shame so many people apply a reductive gaze when considering them.
My wife and I would love to visit Iran, Turkey, etc., but of course with the Great Orange Bloviate in the Whitehouse, such travel seems unwise, at least currently.
I once had an adult student in an EL class I taught from the Middle East who seemed so floored that I was interested in his culture that he gave me Arabic lessons. He was there to improve his English but by merely demonstrating my interest in his culture, he warmed up to me immediately and shared all manner of interesting tidbits, in turn giving me something substantive and valuable.
What you discover rapidly is that education and knowledge trumps fear. As soon as you understand something, and as soon as you can see the people on the other side of the issue or conflict as human, the anger and fear subsides and you find that commonality and empathy.
First of all, it's not what you think it means.
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/04/middleeast/ayatollah-death-to-america/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America
"Iranian officials generally explain that the slogan in its historical context has been provoked by US government's hostile policies towards Iran and expresses outrage at those policies, and does not wish for literal death for American people themselves. In a speech to university students, Iran's Supreme Leader, Khamenei interpreted the slogan as "death to the U.S.'s policies, death to arrogance"."
Secondly, I always find it funny how often "whataboutism" is thrown about from many users here when pointing out hypocrisy. Iran has been threatened for a decade and now the the United States is withdrawing from JCPOA. It's simply a disgrace. The language used by this administration and past administrations is far worse, especially because it comes from a Superpower who has already destabilised the entire region.
User Banned (5 Days): Repeated arguing in bad faith and antagonization after being warned.
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.
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
I posted a Reuters article on the last page that covers the infraction but Iran did ship the extra heavy water out of Iran in accordance with the JCPOA. They appeared to still be following the deal.
Is this a serious comment? Trump directly threatened to ravage North Korea and has brought on the worst kind of warmongers like John Bolton. Pull your head out of your ass.
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?)
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?)
Wrong. Iran was allowed to work on conventional ballistic missiles, not nuclear capable ones. That's why Iran stopped testing Safir I guess.
So, the alternative is better? No deal, continue to work on a nuclear weapon *now*?
This was purely a accord around Nuclear Weapons. Not missiles, conventional warfare weapons, etc.
Iran already has the capability to fire missiles very far distances. It's not as if you can strip them of that technology or something. As to funding extreme organizations, it seems the US does not really care about that with other ME nations such as Saudi Arabia who directly helped fund 9/11... why is Iran such a boogie man in that regard?
This accord was a first step toward bringing Iran into the modern world. It was not perfect, it was also not all encompassing. It was what the US and the other nations could get to pass. The thought process was once Iran's people saw the benefits of more foreign investment toward their quality of living, they would push for more reforms. The problem was, no foreign investment came as expected due to Trump's rhetoric on the campaign trail, so little benefits have actually came to the people over the deal.
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."
Note:
They have no plan to replace this agreement much less the political support to do so. So why did they make the decision? Something the press don't have the balls to say; war.
- The JCPOA agreement followed unilateral pressure from China, Russia, Europe and the US. It was this that forced Iran to negotiate.
- Having now alienated those allies, who opted to remain in the agreement regardless, the US does not have the support to enforce the same intensity of sanctions, much less more crippling ones as the White House claims.
They have no plan to replace this agreement much less the political support to do so. So why did they make the decision? Something the press don't have the balls to say; war.
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.
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.
To 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."
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.
The IAEA said Iran was upholding their nuclear commitments just three days ago.
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.
It's such an infuriatingly stupid complaint... "The treaty doesn't address ALL of our grievances, so let's just shred it!"
Had the Trump administration been anything but fanatic about killing this agreement, it would've paved the way for other treaties that addressed Iran's foreign policy and their support for terrorist orgs.
Instead, let's just spend trillions of dollars and cause massive loss of life for REGIME CHANGE!! Hey, don't talk about Iraq!
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.
Oh god, is this trolling or just plain stupidity? There's already been an independent institute verifying their compliance.
What the fuck
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.
Except for the fact that they have complied with the agreement. As posted (with citation) multiple times in this thread.
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.
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.
The deal was better than nothing, which is what we have now. There is no sanction we can do that can't be worked around, given they are unilateral. Meanwhile, no nation will trust any agreement we ever make again.
Oh, and war is all but certain, and with that, a huge incentive to develop a deterrent to us action. Sounds like a great reason to restart their nuke program.
Oh, and war is all but certain, and with that, a huge incentive to develop a deterrent to us action. Sounds like a great reason to restart their nuke program.
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.
I see from your profil that you're from the US. Do you have even the foggiest idea of how many black operations and illegal drone strikes your country has done in the last three decades? If there's a ranking on terrorist states, you're topping it. The only reason the US are escaping that well-desserved label is that they're too big to be punished.
And don't get me started on your slavish support of Israel's war crimes.
I'm not going to take Israel's and the US's word over that of the IAEA, nor should anyone.
Stupidity just got even worse.
I just want to bury my head in the sand right now...
Why shouldn't Iran have ballistic missles? Who do you think you are to impose such sanctions on other nations? What do you think about Israil's nuclear warheads? And the fact that they did not accepted NPT?
And how exactly do you have the audacity of talking about not being able to trust Iran In a thread about US living an international treaty with Iran?
Also watch this:
Because the US and the Republican party philosophy is Projectionism.
The cognitive dissonance of an ideology can be propagated if one can convince thyself and those within their ideology that the other party is the one committing the acts, when in actuality its the ideology through its access to power that is guilty of what they accuse others of doing.
American leadership for a signifigant amount of the last 70 years have been war criminals, largely from the Republican party, starting with Eisenhower's administration allowing the CIA to overthrow Iran for Oil and continuing through the Obama administration and its comically liberal use of drone strikes.
America by far has been the largest perpetrator of state sponsored terrorism through the military and the CIA then any country in the history of the world, but we will never rightfully acknowledge it unless the world forces us to.
Perhaps it's time and Trump being a Russian puppet just might make that happen.
Also Iran is the last real country that the US can beat the drum of war to. Who else fits the narrative and hasn't already been destabilized in the last 30 years by the US?
Last edited:
People that think the Iran deal is bad must be literally foaming at the mouth that they are so upset with trump and Pompeo on North Korea
Nobody argued that the Iran deal was a perfect deal that will lead to world peace at large, eliminating all conflict and leading to Iran enterin the US as the 51st State. It was a compromise. An amazing compromise thought to be impossible, stopping Iran from further developing nuclear weapons (which they were about 3 months away from finishing), opening trade for them,s topping sanctions. Of course Iran was still allowed to build missiles, of course it didn't turn Iran into the USA's biggest friends, that was never the target. The target was stopping a war that seemed inevitable from happening. And it did not only that, but it lead to the best relationship Iran had with the US, the UK, germany, france and basically every other influential western country in decades.
Depending on how Iran now answers and if the right-wing extremists in the government get their way - as they did with Trump in the US - we could now be once again facing another war in the Middle East. And that is solely, 100%, on the American People and Trump.
The Iran Deal was an amazing achievement in world diplomacy and seeing how American Media now tries to spin it into something else, solely because their crazy, xenophobic, anti-muslim president says so, while the entire rest of the world, politicans, media, everyone, watches in disbelief, is quite disappointing but really not suprising. We literally have the responsible agency whose sole purpose it is to see if their are any violations saying "Nope! No Violations." We got fucking Germany awkwardly ignoring Isael trying to lie about violations Iran is supposed to be responsible for, because they know its bullshit. Germany. Israel could literally fart in Merkel's face and the government would find a way to spin it into something positive and, yet, nothing here.
And then here you guys are, discussing if there were violations, because your racist grandpa of a president heard it on Fox & Friends. Jesus Christ.
Last edited:
im saying cite
you have the time to write all that text but you cant spend 20 seconds on google and copy paste a url that shows exactly what youre talking about. it allows more discussion and kills hearsay and #fakenews
if they violated it in any way show me, dont expect me to just type in iran deal violations and sift through things to get to whatever specific thing youre trying to say
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ar-deal/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5bc3388f82b7
are you talking about those violations? how am i to know
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)
im not saying they didnt violate it. i dont know everything. maybe theres proof of a violation. but im sure as hell not going to take some random persons statement on the internet as proof. if you want to be taken seriously its not outrageous to expect backing of a claim, especially when it seems to go against most other things shown. its not hard
edit and now im arguing with a ghost
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.
In a deal, everybody needs to make concession but it seems like you want only one side to do it much like the whole zero dum Trumpian belief that there is a winner and a loser in a deal.
To be honest, I just don't get what is going in everyone's minds. I see high-fiving over what amounts to a meeting in the North Korea situation while clearly being shown just how difficult it is to impose the specifics of any agreement in a hostile foreign nation without a straight up invasion. What access will we have in North Korea that we don't have in Iran? Will they be allowed to build missiles too like Iran was allowed? What are the odds they would give up conventional weapons like missiles? What about their "satellite launches" that are just missile launches in disguise?
People are genuinely acting as though this is like the Emperor of Japan after WW2 signing an unconditional surrender. I can't stand this short-sighted ignorance. There's an actual opportunity here and we're too busy celebrating over ourselves and talking about who gets which award that I think it will be blown.
People are genuinely acting as though this is like the Emperor of Japan after WW2 signing an unconditional surrender. I can't stand this short-sighted ignorance. There's an actual opportunity here and we're too busy celebrating over ourselves and talking about who gets which award that I think it will be blown.
Not every deal has to be perfect or even benicial for us to be good. We compromised with Iran which a lot of people would have never thought possible. Let's just toss it away though and compromise our international standing.
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.
Iran needs to change its ways before we give them money again.
Trump should really have to provide hard, factual proof for why we should pull out of this deal to the other members in it or else it's not allowed. It's the same situation as the Paris Climate Accord where he kept talking about it allowing China and India to make more coal-powered factories when coal is never mentioned in the agreement anywhere. If Trump wants Iran to have an easier time to make nuclear weapons, he's doing everything he can to make that possible as quick as he can.
Their own frozen financial assets were given back to them. The Obama administration never paid them, they just returned money that belonged to them.
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.
Second, the deal was never about Iranian internal issues. Any change in Iranian government should come from inside. We all know how Syria and Lybia ended up.
Third, probably not something somebody as ignorant as you cares to know but almost nobody in Iran wears burqa.
What do you expect from a man whose wife refuses to shake hands with him.
