Does what he has to say change the fact that there were no inspections of military bases in Iran? Honestly you can print spin by anyone, but if what they have to say doesn't change the material facts then it really doesn't matter what they have to say, no matter what their qualifications are. There were qualified and experienced people selling everyone that North Korea had no nuclear program as a result of the 1994 agreement....then we found out they were wrong. Is there anything this guy could say that would lead us to believe that the Iranians can't be running a covert nuclear program like the North Koreans were? I mean, if you aren't going to inspect....or in this case, can't inspect their military bases, all you are doing is funneling cash to their country to help them with their nuclear program and anything else they want to spend on.
This deal was negotiated by those who negotiated the Syrian weapons deal. We know the history leading up to the deal (US going back on its word) and the history after the deal was signed (Syria lied). Why then should Syria’s partner-in-crime be trusted? https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/world/middleeast/netanyahu-congress-iran-israel-speech.html The prime minister dissected Mr. Obama’s proposed deal, complaining that it would allow Iran to keep some nuclear enrichment facilities and leave it capable of producing enough fuel for a bomb within a year if it broke the deal. The agreement would last only 10 years or so and would not address Iran’s ballistic missile program. “It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb. It paves Iran’s path to the bomb,” he said, adding, “This is a bad deal.”
Of course, the deal was nothing at all like the Syrian deal which had your Russian buddies overseeing the destruction of the chemical weapons. This had verification from the IAEA etc. We've already seen the reduction in Iran's nuclear capability and how well this deal was actually working.
It's just a sample of the information available, B-Bob, as I'm sure you know. Those who are determined to support trump, come hell or high water, either don't look, don't care, claim the truth is "fake news," or revel in their ignorance. Bizarre and dangerous doesn't begin to describe what is happening, right now, thanks to a pitiful excuse of a man who cares far more about himself than he does about our country, our allies and friends, and the rest of the world.
The North Korean deal in 1994 had IAEA verification too.... Also, you say that the deal was "actually working" but without inspections of Iranian military sites, how could anyone say that for certain?
I've never said the North Korean deal was actually working. We have seen the benefits of the Iranian deal already, and if something changes or goes wrong, we can talk with our allies and others who are in the deal to enact multi-lateral effective sanctions once again.
No, but you are saying that the Iranian deal is working based on what those who were previously saying the North Korean deal was working are saying about the Iranian deal. What "benefits of the Iranian deal" are we seeing? By "we" do you mean Iran? If you are talking about them abandoning a nuclear program, that's the same BS you heard from North Korea that was "verified" by the IAEA....how did that turn out? You simply cannot claim that the Iranians have abandoned their nuclear program when you can't/aren't checking their military sites. All you are doing is saying that you believe them when they say they have abandoned the program....and if you believe that, well then you are like those who bought that BS when the North Koreans were selling it too.
The facts about what benefits we've seen were already posted in the thread when another poster requested it.
So in short you are just spouting off with already debunked propaganda that you know can't stand up to even a basic level of scrutiny? Gotcha. Whenever you get your new DNC talking points, and they tell you how to respond to those who question how you can "know" that Iran is complying with the deal without military sites being inspected, you let me know.
When you have no answer for a very basic question, it means your spin failed. By all means, if you think you can come up with an answer, I invite you to try....till then, I imagine any thinking person would see your propaganda as being debunked. You can't state that someone is complying with a deal if you aren't actually checking.
I have an answer. It was already given. When you ignore the answer and start acting like your own narrative is fact, it means you've failed.
Bobby, nothing from the excellent post by @HeWhoIsLunchbox was debunked. Iran couldn't enrich Uranium above 3.67%. 90% is required to make a nuclear weapon. Iran reduced stockpile of Uranium by 98% We could reenact sanctions if Iran violated the deal Those are some positives
I guess we'll see if the deal can survive without the US. Survive or not, the US has isolated herself here. https://www.politico.eu/article/fed...-trump-hassan-rouhani-nuclear-deal-will-hold/ Federica Mogherini: Iran nuclear deal will hold EU’s top diplomat hits out at Trump’s ‘impulse to destroy’ and insists deal is not dead. By RYAN HEATH FLORENCE, Italy — The Iran nuclear deal can survive without the United States’ support, Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign policy chief, said Friday. Speaking at a State of the Union conference, Mogherini said she has received assurances from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani that the country would stand by the agreement, despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw and reimpose sanctions on Iran earlier this week. “We are determined to keep this deal in place,” Mogherini said, adding that only Iran has the power to unilaterally wreck the deal. The Italian diplomat will meet with the foreign ministers of Germany, France and the United Kingdom — the three European powers that brokered the nuclear deal along with the EU, U.S., China and Russia — in Brussels Tuesday to discuss the future of the agreement. The European diplomats will also meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Europeans are seeking to demonstrate that they can still deliver most of the economic benefits Tehran was promised in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons program and allowing a robust system of international inspections, as well as persuade European companies active in Iran not to abandon their deals out of fear of being penalized by the U.S. In her speech, Mogherini took several shots at Trump, though she did not mention the U.S. president by name, saying: “It seems that screaming, shouting, insulting and bullying, systematically destroying and dismantling everything that is already in place, is the mood of our times. While the secret of change — and we need change — is to put all energies not in destroying the old, but rather in building the new. “This impulse to destroy is not leading us anywhere good,” she added. “It is not solving any of our problems.” She also slammed the idea there could be a quick replacement for the Iran deal, which she reminded the audience took 12 years to negotiate. Global leaders have to “move on from the ‘I win, you lose’ approach,” she insisted. Even the U.S. needs global partners, she cautioned, saying: “No country is big enough to face this world alone.” Mogherini also praised the EU27 for overcoming six decades of differences of opinion over defense cooperation, pointing to an agreement on joint military headquarters, efforts at joint procurement and other cross-border research projects — all of which were “considered impossible just two years ago.” The Italian diplomat touted her plans for a European Peace Facility “to give us predictability” in European defense and support global peace efforts. “The State of our Union is as strong as Europeans want it to be,” she said, expressing regret that support for the EU among Europeans is falling in some countries. “The European Union means all of us … It is not a building in Brussels.” If Europeans don’t invest in the EU together, it will become a “dysfunctional labyrinth,” she warned.
Iraq did have a nuke program. Inspectors found Iraq's biological weapon, chemical weapon, illegal weapon parts, and nuclear program in the 90s. As a consequence, there were numerous resolutions against Iraq and these were destroyed by the UN teams. Inspectors said there is no evidence of WMD in 2003 (they were right). Inspectors were both 1- able to detect illegal weapons in Iraq in the 90s and 2- correct in their assessment of no WMD in Iraq in 2003. 2003 Iraq war happen under the guise of them having WMD, which turns out to be false. Inspection is the best tool available and it did work in Iraq. If you don't trust Iran, why would you not want inspection? Already replied to the time limit in previous post.
If you don’t like my comments, I invite you to place me on ignore....if not Swiss Roll it up your @&&. If you like the Iranians so much go move and live there. America has been facing the Iranian military for years posing as “Freedom Fighters” in Iraq. Militants my @&&.....they are cowards hiding behind women and children. We (America) are going to have to face those jagoffs sooner or later. Might as well turn Israel on them now. Or America take them on now, rather than later. Iran has used the money Obama gave them to invest into a ballistic missle program and weaponry. This tyrannical. regime has proclaimed “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”. No different than the Klingons in those Star Trek movies/shows. All they know is war. *Actually the people have turned millennials.....it’s the Mullahs who are complete @-*****.
It's a catch 22, you need nukes to protect ones ultimate sovereignty but acquiring the nukes makes you a large target. Iran's government doesn't want to become the next Iraq. Same principle applies NK, Pakistan, China, Russia, and Israel; it's a Pandora's box thing. The Obama Deal certainly had its pros and cons, and Trump's path has the same. I think Trump's path will face a more uphill climb since he doesn't have the backing of the most powerful in the international community. Frankly, that path makes it more likely we will get drawn in a war with Iran due to Israel. On the other hand, sanctions are very effective in many instances.
https://newrepublic.com/article/148339/anatomy-lousy-decision I am biased. I worked for President Obama, supporting the negotiations that produced the Iran deal President Trump now plans to scrap. On the other hand, laboring on nuclear arms control for three decades, including as an inspector in North Korea and as an observer at Iranian nuclear facilities, also gives you a perspective that people who don’t read nuclear manuals at home (a solid mental health choice) sometimes lack. For those that have never read the actual text of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or are less familiar with nuclear inspections, here’s what President Trump is throwing away. Before the JCPOA came into force, Iran had close to 20,000 uranium enrichment machines, called centrifuges, in operation. Most of these were primitive, but some were more advanced models and the pace of advancement was accelerating. Under the JCPOA, Iran cannot have more than 5,060 centrifuges operating and cannot use more advanced models until 2025, and then would have had to slowly introduce them and explain why they were doing so. Iran was also required to let IAEA inspectors track and monitor centrifuge production and storage of parts. That all goes away after today. Iran is within its right to reject any restrictions now that the U.S. is openly violating the deal. Before the JCPOA entered into force, Iran had enriched some uranium up to 19 percent of uranium-235 content, i.e. where 19 percent of the uranium sample consists of the particular isotope that can be easily split (uranium-235). Natural uranium has less than 1 percent U-235, while producing weapons requires uranium enriched above 90 percent U-235. Iran also possessed large amounts of uranium gas, many times more than needed to make one nuclear weapon. Under the JCPOA, Iran is barred from enriching any uranium above 3.67 percent and from possessing more than 300 kg of uranium gas, less than the amount needed for even one bomb. Both of these restrictions were to last until 2030. Now, Iran can enrich to whatever level it wants, for any reason, and posses as much uranium gas for enrichment as they choose. This will leave Iran weeks if not days from a bomb once they restore their infrastructure. Before the JCPOA entered into force, International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors could only visit some Iranian sites every few weeks, some every few months. Under the JCPOA, IAEA inspectors have permanent access at key sites and have installed remote sensing equipment that provides real-time data to ensure that Iran is not enriching uranium to a level higher than allowed under the deal—technology no other state maintaining nuclear facilities has ever allowed international monitors to install. Now, all of this goes away. IAEA access will be greatly reduced and the IAEA can only realistically hope to gain access to suspect or military sites if it can gain the backing of the IAEA Board of Governors and the UN Security Council. These seem unlikely and any such request could ignite a political and even military standoff. Could Iran have sat back under these restrictions for 15 or 20 or 25 years and then just built a bomb? This was the scenario the deal’s critics focused on. But it wouldn’t have been that simple: The JCPOA bans Iran from doing any research on specific technologies needed to produce nuclear weapons. So while it is possible they could have built up stocks of uranium and a large enrichment capability, without the mechanical devices needed to produce a bomb, such work would have been somewhat useless without the auxiliary research. And any moves to do such research would have been obvious, since Iran was required under the JCPOA to adopt something known as the IAEA Additional Protocol—the gold standard in inspection rights and access that ensure the IAEA can get into facilities, interview people, and gain access to information upon request. These weapon restrictions and inspection rights, too, now go away. These are just a few example of where Iran was before the deal, what restrictions they accepted under with the 156 pages of the JCPOA, and what they are now free to reverse at any time now that President Trump has announced the United States will violate the terms of the deal by refusing to waive sanctions. The nuclear expert in me has trouble understanding either how this state of affairs is better than what existed under the JCPOA, or how President Trump—who has defied the advice of key European allies—expects to gain broad international support for a new, tougher deal, given what will certainly be less effective sanctions and lower support from our allies than what the U.S. had leading up to the JCPOA. And for all Russia’s general hostility to NATO and misuse of the UN to protect Syria’s president Assad, we should remember that Russia supported UN sanctions against Iran and blocked the sale of advanced air defense missiles to the state. These air defense missiles have now been delivered, making U.S. military action riskier for our troops and airmen. U.S. violation of the JCPOA gives Iran more nuclear options, and us less control and insight. Iran can be expected slowly, carefully but persistently to remove the restrictions it is now under and work toward being able to produce a nuclear weapon at a time of its choosing. This will not happen all at once, but it will happen. Europe may try to provide Iran with incentives to go slow, but in the end the death of the JCPOA leaves the United States with only two ways to stop an Iranian nuclear weapons capability—negotiate a new, better deal with less leverage (unlikely) or prepare for regular military strikes that may or may not prove able to keep Iran from the nuclear bomb.
