> No Active Bomb-Making (2016–2019): Neither the U.S. intelligence community nor the IAEA found evidence that Iran was spinning secret centrifuges or actively manufacturing a weapon at these sites while the JCPOA was in effect. The traces found were leftover from the pre-2003 weapons program.

Thanks. You proved my point. Did you even read the first article you posted?

> "...the material in question is probably from a clandestine project that was first discovered in 2005 and reported by the IAEA the next year. ... If the material was from that time period, it would be a safeguards violation but not a violation of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which regulates nuclear activity from 2016. The green salt project was halted in 2004, and while all the documentation was carefully preserved ... there has been no indication of it having been resumed"

Your second article is from 2025 and it probably refers to last couple of years.. The US withdrew in 2018... Of course they continued enrichment after that withdrawal.

Let me add a bit more:

"The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its quarterly report on Iran’s nuclear program June 6 [2018], and, unsurprisingly, the report found that Iran is complying with its commitments under the multilateral deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)." [1]

Again. You are wrong on this one! Iran adhered to JCPOA. US pulled out. Iran continued enrichment beyond limits defined by JCPOA as the agreement was dead by then.

[1] https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-06-08/iaea-report-conf...

▲

YZF 4 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

throwaway534631 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> between 2009 and 2018, it said." -> this is smack in the middle of the JCPOA period.

The US withdrew in the 2018, so it is actually not "smack in the middle".

> And yes, this is from 2025, but it's about non-compliance during the period where the JCPOA was active.

It is actually not. You are not reading the material you are providing.

> The findings in the "comprehensive" ... pave the way for a push by the United States, Britain, France and Germany for the board to declare Iran in violation of its non-proliferation obligations.

> It would be the first time in almost 20 years Iran has formally been found in non-compliance.

Please read that last quote one more time.

> It would be the first time in almost 20 years Iran has formally been found in non-compliance.

But also this is about "violation of its non-proliferation obligations" not JCPOA.

You are going against the IAEA and US intel community which are both in agreement that Iran was compliant during that period. I think you have biases for which you are misinterpreting the facts. Either that or you are purposely spreading misinformation. In any case I will not purse this thread anymore.

▲

Hikikomori 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's not worth your time to argue with this guy, he's one of the worst Zionists you'll find here.

▲

YZF 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

YZF 3 hours ago | parent [-]

And here's another article from a supporter of the JCPOA: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/an-unsatisfying-outcome-o...

"The finale of the PMD controversy has been a long time coming. In November 2011, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano issued a detailed report — based on “overall credible” information from a “wide variety of independent sources” and the Agency’s own investigations — which concluded that, at least until 2003 and possibly beyond, “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”

In the years following the report, the IAEA actively sought to gain a better understanding of those activities, but its efforts were stymied by Iranian stonewalling and obfuscation. Tehran repeatedly claimed that the evidence on which the IAEA was relying was fabricated and based on forgeries. It denied that Iran was ever interested in nuclear weapons or that it had engaged in nuclear weapons-related research and experimentation."

...

"This may come as an unpleasant surprise to American observers, many of whom probably assumed that sanctions relief would depend on Iran credibly disclosing its past activities, not simply fulfilling the undemanding, largely procedural requirements of the “roadmap.” Critics can be expected to attack the JCPOA anew for permitting sanctions to be relieved despite the December IAEA report having concluded that Iran has not made a full accounting of its past nuclear work"

So terrible agreement and Iran not acting in good faith. And we can debate technicalities and I'll even acknowledge that "technically" you're right but it's irrelevant.

	▲	YZF 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So interrogating Gemini further to clarify the ground truth about the 2016-2019 period gets me to: The Final Verdict So, was Iran in compliance? Under the strict text of the JCPOA (2016–2019): Yes. They met the mathematical limits on active enrichment, which is why the UN, the IAEA, and the US State Department repeatedly certified their compliance during that period. Under the spirit of the deal and international law: No. The premise of the JCPOA was that Iran had to come clean so the IAEA had a baseline to measure against. By hiding the Atomic Archive and keeping secret contaminated sites on standby, Iran proved they negotiated the deal in bad faith and violated their foundational NPT Safeguards. I can live with that. So if you want to be "technical" sure. Either the agreement was bad and was upheld or it was good and was violated. Either way, Iran has acted in bad faith is the bottom line. I will add that we don't have evidence that Iran was enriching Uranium in those secret sites during this period (one could even say we have some evidence they weren't). But that still doesn't change that they acted in bad faith and/or the agreement was bad.