| |
| ▲ | hagbard_c 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | ...and then you woke up and realised that Iran never allowed those inspectors to inspect the actually important facilities and started removing inspectors from the country in 2023 under Biden. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-director-... | | |
| ▲ | defrost 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Chronologically wrong. During the time of JCPOA (original, between Iran and the P5+1) inspectors had access to where they wanted to go (sometimes with friction, sure) and were able to place tamper resistant / tamper revealing instrumentation, air filters, and spectrometers - effectively creating a data record that could place a stochastic cap on {enrichment level, volume}. After Trump ripped up that agreement during his first term, withdrawing from the pact in 2018, that was no longer the case - leading to your linked 2023 statement. | | |
| ▲ | drnick1 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | The JCPOA was a huge mistake. Even assuming that it truthfully capped enrichment and prevented the development of an atomic bomb, at the same time it enriched the nation and therefore allowed Iran to finance terrorism and ballistic missiles. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Even assuming It did. > at the same time it enriched the nation It returned some of that nations own money. > allowed Iran to finance terrorism and ballistic missiles. Like Russia, Israel, the UsofA, North Korea, et al ? Balance of Power is a tricky game. | | |
| ▲ | drnick1 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | My point is that we should have taken "their" money and used it against them. This is how you deal with enemies. | | |
| ▲ | kelnos 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's naive and simplistic. Your counterparty isn't going to agree to a deal if they get nothing in return. "Stop doing nuclear stuff or else" isn't a deal, it's a demand. And this fiasco proves that the US can't really do enough militarily if Iran just decides they don't want to abide by a deal/demand. Sure, this war was costly and painful for Iran, but they're coming out of it with better terms than they had before the war. | | |
| ▲ | drnick1 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > but they're coming out of it with better terms than they had before the war. That is precisely the problem. We have not done enough militarily when we clearly had the upper hand in the first few weeks of the war. We sank their boats, destroyed their planes and anti-aircraft batteries and could freely fly all over the country destroying targets at will. The Trump administration has clearly failed to finish what it started and has left Israel and the GCC countries in a worst position than if it hadn't done anything at all. The "deal" is a pathetic outcome. We should return to combat operations and finish what we started. This is not about invading the country. It is about neutering the regime so that it can't threaten the region and international waterways. The most important aspect of this is bleeding it dry economically by destroying their ability to export oil. Track and sink the "shadow fleet" anywhere in the world, carpet bomb oil production facilities, and destroy bridges and railways that allow trade by land. Make it clear that any damages caused to neighboring countries will be paid for by Iran using their frozen assets. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | croisillon 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | and now Iran is getting fresh €250 banknotes, impressive gambit sir |
|
| |
| ▲ | acdha 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Biden was elected _after_ Trump broke the deal so it's unclear why you think that tells us anything about what would have happened had the United States honored the treaty. |
| |
| ▲ | tristanj 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The crisis exists because Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. That's the root issue. JCPOA was never a permanent solution. Under JCPOA, Iran agreed to temporarily cap enrichment for 15 years until 2030. After which, Iran could enrich freely. JCPOA had no extension framework, the deal could not be extended without being renegotiated. And Iranian officials refused to agree to permanent enrichment caps, they said the 15-year sunset on enrichment was a non-negotiable. | | |
| ▲ | blactuary 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The experience of the last 10 years with these dingbats in charge is an incentive for every country to pursue their own nukes | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 44 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not gonna bring up that the US is now paying Iran 25B + who knows how much in reparations? Weird how you forget this important talking point of yours. | |
| ▲ | kelnos 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The crisis exists because Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. The US's own intelligence agencies said they weren't, though. | | |
| ▲ | tristanj 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's a badly misleading framing of the situation. The U.S. intelligence community said for more than a year that Iran was weeks away from enriching uranium further to bomb grade, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. "That is extremely worrisome but that is not weeks away from having a nuclear weapon and not weeks away from having a nuclear weapon that can be loaded on a nuclear missile," Kimball said. "My understanding from non-governmental sources and the internal assessment of the (intelligence community) is that they believe it would take several months or more to fashion the highly enriched uranium bomb grade into a nuclear device, and one to two years to manufacture a small light nuclear device," Kimball said. https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/jun/23/Tulsi-Gabbard... |
| |
| ▲ | throaway23663 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So you're saying all of this shit is a because we could not renegotiate a deal... which is to end in 2030? As if there was no more time to wait? | |
| ▲ | hypeatei 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The crisis exists because Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons According to whom? I know there's one country who says Iran is two weeks away from nuclear weapons, but who else? | | |
| ▲ | tristanj 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | According to Ali Motahari, a former member of the parliament of Iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Motahari Former Iranian Majles member Ali Motahari said in an April 24, 2022 interview on ISCA News (Iran) that when Iran began developing its nuclear program, the goal was to build a nuclear bomb. He said that there is no need to beat around the bush, and that the bomb would have been used as a "means of intimidation" in accordance with a Quranic verse about striking "fear in the hearts of the enemies of Allah." "When we began our nuclear activity, our goal was indeed to build a bomb,” former Iranian politician Ali Motahari told ISCA News. “There is no need to beat around the bush,” he said. When asked if saying this publicly will negatively affect the ongoing JCPOA negotiations, Motahari answered: "Nobody notices what I am saying." https://www.memri.org/tv/former-iranian-majles-member-motaha... https://www.iranintl.com/en/202204245312 | | |
| ▲ | hypeatei 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > a former member of the parliament of Iran He wasn't a member at the time of those statements nor did he have any involvement in their nuclear program. That's misleading to say the least. Ali Motahari—former member of Iran’s Parliament—clarified that the interview dates back to May 2022, when he neither held a parliamentary seat nor any official role in nuclear affairs.[0] So besides a single guy in Iran, are there official delegations that have concluded Iran was developing nuclear weapons? The US has had two National Intelligence Estimates, which consists of all 18 agencies in the intelligence community, conclude that they were not developing nukes. 0: https://wanaen.com/trump-shares-old-ali-motahari-interview-o... | | |
| ▲ | tristanj 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > "conclude that they were not developing nukes." You're misreading your own sources. The 2007 NIE and Gabbard's 2025 testimony both describe a nuclear weapons program that Iran "suspended in 2003". They confirm a nuclear weapons program existed, the opposite of what you're claiming. And you want an official source: the IAEA concluded in May 2025 that Iran ran an "undeclared structured nuclear program" until the early 2000s using undeclared material. Then it found Iran in formal non-compliance in June of last year. "Not building a warhead today" and "never pursued weapons" are different claims, and you swapped one for the other. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/iaea-director-gen... | | |
| ▲ | hypeatei 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | I never swapped claims. We're talking about nuclear weapons and why the US started a war with Iran this year due to this supposed "crisis" (in your words) but there's no evidence that a threat is imminent. The NIEs were just one data point against your claim; the burden is still on you to show who else agrees with the assesment that this is a crisis. > IAEA concluded in May 2025 that Iran ran an "undeclared structured nuclear program" until the early 2000s "nuclear program" is not the same as a weapons program and the IAEA sounding alarm bells over policy violations is not a conclusion that Iran is/was on a nuclear warpath. | | |
| ▲ | tristanj 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Name the civilian use for Iran's 440 kg of 60% enriched uranium. There isn't one. No power reactor uses it (those run on 3-5%), no research reactor needs it (~20% max), and it sits 98-99% of the way enriched weapons-grade. Iran has enough fissile material for multiple bombs with under two weeks of further enrichment. There is no civilian use for this material. Iran enriched this material, under a mountain, in violation of IAEA requirements, at a site it hid from IAEA investigators until it got caught lying, while stonewalling compliance investigators for years. Even your own source, the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment report, states: "Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons." What's your justification for Iran producing this material, if not for a nuclear weapons program? | | |
| ▲ | kelnos 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Did that 2025 assessment conclude that Iran was building toward a nuclear weapon, or didn't it? | | |
| ▲ | tristanj 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | The 2025 unclassified report does not assess that, but the 2024 one did. Money quote: Iran has greatly expanded its nuclear program, reduced IAEA monitoring, and undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so. Also, that 2025 unclassified report was released before the June 2025 enrichment numbers I shared; these numbers would have influenced the report, and you dodged the question: What's your justification for Iran producing 440kg of highly enriched 60% material, in secret deep under a mountain in violation of IAEA agreements, if not for a nuclear weapons program? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | defrost 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | For unrelated reasons I personally don't believe Iran was ever pursuing a nuclear weapon, just edging enrichment for leverage. That said, this: The US has had two National Intelligence Estimates, which consists of all 18 agencies in the intelligence community, conclude that they were not developing nukes.
has little weight given these were / are the same US intell agencies that were blindsided and caught pants down unaware and in the dark about the 1998 India / Pakistan nuclear test exchange. |
| |
| ▲ | throaway23663 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > MEMRI was co-founded by Israeli ex-intelligence officer Yigal Carmon and Israeli-American political scientist Meyrav Wurmser in 1998. Well that's convenient, isn't it. | | |
| ▲ | tristanj 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're trying hard to discredit this, but that fails here. The interview in question was conduced by ISCA News, an Iranian state-run media agency. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tristanj 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | JCPOA only had temporary enrichment limits, which would end in 2030, after which Iran could enrich freely. It did not permanently stop enrichment. If JCPOA was followed by both Iran and the US to the letter, we would face a similar crisis to the one seen today, except around 2031-2035. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Unless agreements are renegotiated and extended, of course. What matters is ongoing engagement and monitoring, it's a far more tractable position than standoffs with zero knowledge or interaction. | | |
| ▲ | tristanj 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | The core reason those sunset dates exist is because Iranian officials stated that a sunset on enrichment limits was a non-negotiable. They would not sign a deal without them. Claiming "agreements are renegotiated and extended" is hypothetical. What incentive does Iran have to agree to enrichment caps post-2030? Why would Iran give up its strongest negotiating card, its nuclear program? | | |
| ▲ | cosmicgadget 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | For the same reasons it temporarily gave it up before? | | |
| ▲ | tristanj 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Under JCPOA, Iran capped its nuclear program for 15 years in exchange for: * Global sanctions relief * $100-150 billion in frozen assets * Access to the global oil market Iran in 2030 under JCPOA already has access to all three. The US already played its best cards to get Iran to agree to JCPOA. The US has little new to offer, other than resumed sanctions. | | |
| ▲ | no-name-here 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Under a JCPOA extension, why would items like access to the global oil markets (in addition to sanctions) not be part of the negotiations? And with JCPOA and its possible continuation, that was a joint agreement among a number of countries - in the current situation, it’s just the U.S./Israel (+ them trying to impose their will on other countries to go along with any carrots/sticks). | |
| ▲ | cosmicgadget 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well yes, exactly. Would sanctions not be an incentive in 2030? | |
| ▲ | drnick1 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The US has little new to offer, other than resumed sanctions. Not turning the country into a parking lot is a rather generous offer. |
|
| |
| ▲ | kelnos 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Claiming "agreements are renegotiated and extended" is hypothetical. What's not hypothetical is that, under the deal, they agreed to not enrich until 2030. What's not hypothetical is that Trump abandoned the deal, with nothing to replace it, allowing them to start enriching in 2017 instead. And if you're going to claim that renegotiation is hypothetical, then you also have to agree that any other possible future outcome, including one in which Iran develops a functional nuclear weapon, is also hypothetical. |
|
| |
| ▲ | drbojingle 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | and lord knows a new deal would not be possible by that time... | |
| ▲ | kelnos 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ok, so Trump gave them 13 years of enrichment that they wouldn't otherwise have had. And those 13 years would have been plenty of time to extend or renegotiate that agreement. |
|
|
